stonewall337

Note: you continue to think I was the one slinging mud at the staff. That was blade...

GP/xp/time has been explained...several dozen times. As well, I'd be willing to bet I have far more people agreeing with my points their yours. As for the "textbook" example, and "english speaking", that is just BULL. Ya see, RS has specific words which don't exactly correlate with other words. However, some words are just misused, such as Racheya's use of "elite", and the others I pointed out. BTW: I've pointed out words etc on articles numerous times...and the staff hasn't deigned to respond. I believe this has now developed more into a case where both are defending a side because of their personal stance. I fail to see what anything else could add to this discussion. My point has been made, and agreed with. I don't think anyone else will change their mind.

If you think letter to the editor type responses are necessary to be objective, you sir not only are sadly mistaken, but know little about writing. As for efficiency, there is a general (real life) definition, and then there is one which is easier to prove in rs, gp/xp/time. We can easily show that. "effort" and "waste" are quite a bit harder to prove, since they are rather player-dependent. As such, I say my definition is far better. Grind: I once again disagree with your definition of "grind". Runescape has specific meanings for certain words. "grind" isn't necessarily boring, by definition. "lot of calculations with XP per hour" That is just not true. That is what is BS. The next point is more an inference made by the author's tone, then a direct statement. Erroneous claim backed up with extensive (10+ years) of gaming experience, including dozens of games, hundreds of friends, and thousand of interactions. By "proof" I meant scientific proof. An author shouldn't use incorrect words, or he should expect to get called on it. What Rachaye meant is IRRELEVANT. Its what she said that counts. Nefarious implies rule breaking. Simple as that.

9 more short term.

Given the two options, Cstaff.

Personally, I have no issues with Racheya or her article, I appreciate personal perspectives...it gives something to debate and discuss. See, I admit I am not perfect. However, there is also quite a bit of difference between grammar mistakes, which any editor should catch, and other types of errors. As well, a Times piece and a forum post are also quite different mediums. Grammar mistakes are quite common, and often accepted, as time is often more important then proofreading everything. I don't take the same amount of time proofreading a forum post as I do my college papers. Its really quite simple. I could point out several grammar mistakes in your post as well, such as misuse of .... However, that isn't the point here. In fact, I'd be amazed if anyone here on TIF uses perfect writing when texting. In that medium of idea exchange, proper grammar is actually neither needed, or expected. It really should be simple logic to figure the difference out.

Oh no doubt in my mind that he could say something like that. :lol: I mean afterall when a monster has infinite slash and stab defense then you'll never hit with either a longsword or a rapier. So having the zeros flash up sooner with the rapier is a definite advantage. You can use a defender with CLS. Advantage is mute. Heretical idea? Definitely, since CLS must be used with shield is biblical law. So sayeth the tabulated data sheets which basis can not be questioned. I won't mention that CLS has a stab attack, I promise. :-# The advantage to CLS of defender is roughly 25% less then to CR, since CLS is 25% slower, and the +5 str and ~+18 slash/stab isn't 25% more effective on CLS. EG, defender makes you hit the same amount higher over not using (Around 27 LP) to both CLS and CR. It also adds the same amount of accuracy to CR as to CLS. However, CLS is slower. So defender increases in value to CR roughly 25% more then it aids CLS. Same holds true for things like berserker ring. It will increase max hit roughly the same to both a GS and a whip, but will increase the DPS of a whip far more then GS. The only instance this wouldn't be true is if the increased accuracy were needed of a slower weapons. However, this is so rarely seen in RS (The only exception I can think of is perhaps zil, but there you'd want Verac>GS>whip) that as a general rule, bonuses help faster weapons at higher levels, then they do slower weapons. And CLS has stab, but its only 10% more then CR for being 25% slower. Simple solution, get both. Assuming optimal gear, for pure DPS, defender+CR>defender+cls, but shield+cr<shield+CLS on monsters like graador, where a shield is often needed or used.

Prove that training any skill for 200 hours isn't fun. Go train fishing for 200 hours, come back and tell me you had 100% fun doing it, then you can use that as proof. Sorry but that is just an idiotic thing to say. The thing is, those arguing for higher requirements have't really said any reasons for it. The reasons for lower requirements without excess grind is to make the game fun, which we should all essentially be playing it for, and should be the groundwork and basis for any game that exists. Lower requirements let players train skills at their own pace going through the game without overloading them with all quests at once, but letting them get the levels through other quests, random musings, money making etc. Grinding for requirements however has no point. They don't need to be there. Well, RS is different then other games. I LOVED getting 99 slayer, but did I get frustrated at times, or bored? Of course. But it was still FUN. Its like most things, even an amusement park for example. Standing in lines, and paying lots of $$$ isn't fun, but the other parts more then make up for it. Correct me if I am wrong, Obt, but I believe that is what he is saying.

One last thing; Posting that you cannot understand something doesn't make you look smart. Nor does name-calling. Seeing as no one can prove who's posts got removed, it's best to avoid that subject. =D> Incredibly well stated. This is EXACTLY my stance. Things which are boring, RC and agility, I do as fast as possible, because they are boring, but often necessary parts of the game. Things which are fun I do fast and efficient, because gaining a goal is often more fun for me then simply the actions itself.

Of course not all of them were, but I can't spend the time going through every small point. Like I wrote already, I don't intend on writing an article only to have to write another article's worth of words in this topic on little things. Ideally, we don't want to be getting help from people just to stop their criticism. Something like what you're mentioning is something that needs to be discussed by the Editorial Panel it'self. And thank you for apologising, but calling the Times a circlejerk and such aren't going to get you anywhere if you're trying to make a legitimate point. NOTE: That was bladewing, not me. And I'd disagree TS. Several friends of Racheya, including in this case the OP, have done the same thing in the past. In which case this is rather a case of precedent, instead of guilt by association. My mistake, but the example of that sort of attitude till stands. And just because they're my friends, means they can't express their opinions? Wingless is ON the Times and does a lot of hard work editing and writing articles himself. Miss_Suzumiya is a friend of mine who, in fact, I'm more likely to argue with than anyone here. Just because they're friends and what to defend me against points that they see as genuinely bad things, doesn't mean they won't have their OWN opinions. Nor is is right to suggest that they can't express it. And what do you mean by the OP? As in the OP of this topic, me? O_o You, clearly, didn't get the point. Rather, if your friends tell us basically to bug off, etc, they lack objectivity. That is all there is too it. OP is objective party, or original poster. In this case, objective party, or the person I was talking about. Example, if some of my friends told others to leave me alone, EG Grimy or Lowc etc, when their is room for discussion, then others would be write to consider their bias more a reason why they are "protecting" me, then because of they have any real backing for their statements.

Vulaxi, that is your prerogative. If that is "fun" for you, do so.

I've been playing some RPG's on my iPod Touch, and my main issue was it was a mega PITA to move, my fingers got tired using a virtual d-pad, and control wasn't as smooth. This looks promising.

Of course not all of them were, but I can't spend the time going through every small point. Like I wrote already, I don't intend on writing an article only to have to write another article's worth of words in this topic on little things. Ideally, we don't want to be getting help from people just to stop their criticism. Something like what you're mentioning is something that needs to be discussed by the Editorial Panel it'self. And thank you for apologising, but calling the Times a circlejerk and such aren't going to get you anywhere if you're trying to make a legitimate point. NOTE: That was bladewing, not me. And I'd disagree TS. Several friends of Racheya, including in this case the OP, have done the same thing in the past. In which case this is rather a case of precedent, instead of guilt by association.

Part of the problem, it would seem, is that efficiency is quite dynamic. It is both a means to an end, and an end unto itself. For people like zarfot, I'd assume, trying to maximize efficiency is part of the fun. For others, such as myself, sometimes I'm efficient to gain a goal earlier, with less time/cash spent, and other times it is because I simply ENJOY being efficient, because being inefficient is far more boring.

1.) Its hardly trivial. Its a featured article on the first RS fansite out there. 2.) Show where quotes are taken out of context, people keep on claiming this, without any proof. 3.) You are wellknown as a friend of Rach. Anything you say will, automatically, lack objectivity, especially if presented with proof. @ Racheya. So you claim that all the points I mentioned in my first post were "needless digs at [me]"? That is utterly ridiculous. In fact, over your past several articles, you've received numerous pieces of good advice, and as far as I can tell, you've ignored all of said advice. I've also offered to help you edit any article you wish. I can guarantee that would help cut back some of the criticism, even if only from me. I'd also like to apologize, as I feel on reflection that, even if my original point remains true, it was neither posted in the best form, or written with the most clarity of explanation so as to be helpful.

I'd also like to go on record as being perfectly willing to to edit, and help in a friendly way, any article Racheya or any other Times author is writing. When criticism from the past from several of us is not only blown off completely, but treated as "trolling" or "nitpicking", future criticism is probably going to be more severe in nature.

Actually, you are wrong. It is completely normal to criticize an author, as well as his pieces, and style. CLEARLY you havn't read many reviews, sir. Here are some examples of different negative reviews: "I weep for the souls of the trees that died to make this book" "The occasional good parts of the book weren't really all that good at all; they just seemed that way by comparison to the other even-slower parts. I found the footnotes to be slightly more entertaining" etc Not to mention, the internet is a far different brand of media the newspapers, etc. An author needs to be ready to accept criticism. "But when people like Stonewall337 start disecting every single word we've written down, pulling it out of context and then blame us for the fact that it does not make sense, does not encourage us to get engaged in the conversation about our own articles" Show one quote I took out of context, instead of simply claiming I did so.

I disagree. Stonewall's argument was mostly about semantics, and occasionally irrelevant to the topic of the article. Besides, discussion is allowed which means even criticism can be criticized. I'm fairly certain Racheya meant elitist, not elite. Stonewall didn't read the very next sentence in the article. In fact, he managed to pull several quotes out of context. Citation needed. Without one, your argument has no standing. I gave exact quotations of her article, as well as my response to them. Personally, I find the pretend objectivity more offensive, and more a show of poor writing and logic skills, then most everything else. If you are going to write an op-ed, at least make it clear where you stand. The innate bias is so plain, and well as the lack of logic, that reading this article made me cringe. Racheya, I literally laughed when I read "I don't have time to argue all this." @TS_Stormrage. Due to staff politics, not only was my last application to the Times completely ignored, with not even a PM back until I got in touch with someone months later, but I havn't heard back from the several staff members whom I hit up with ideas for several of my articles, which I wanted peer-review on. Why should I bother to write when it is so obvious that, due only to politics, nothing will come of my work? Also, we don't have much outside of semantics to debate, the whole article was flawed, mainly DUE to a misuse, and mis definition of numerous words.

well the main point of my post was to show that now we have the luxury of all these things, back when i first killed nomad i had none of that, things like rapier werent out if i were to kill nomad now it would be a hell of alot eaiser than when i did it on day 1 thats why the newest grandmaster quest boss should be much harder, since theres much better stuff available now True, if this quest is hard because of boss. I'd much rather have another WGS with an easier boss but far more intense story line. Danz, I'd be more inclined to agree if we had more completed story lines, instead of so many half-assed (and half finished) ones. (Buyers and cellars, blood pact)

Since when are opinion essays supposed to be unbiased? Tip It Times has features and editorials, it doesn't report the news. Seriously, people need to stop criticizing articles on the merit of bias. Saying "that's your opinion" is quite possibly the most meaningless criticism you could ever make to someone, because literally everything could be construed as an opinion. It's not written as opinion. Racheya's article purports to speak for multiple groups of players, not just herself. Which is my point. If she had written it with her stance clearly stated at the start, telling why she stood there, etc, it would lend her the credibility her current worded stance fails to provide.

I've got ~2k slay points ATM. If I ever DESPERATLY need money, I'd cash some in. Personally, I'd rather skip things I don't like.

This. As long as you don't leech of society, and aren't driven simply by an addiciton, how much you play is simply your own business.

I had an elite from horror on release date of clues, never had one from bork in 30'ish kills.

JR has the dubious distinction of being the 2nd TIFFER ever to be added to my ignore list. I suggest you others do so as well. Arguing with idiots is a lesson in futility. Any inference one makes from that statement is their own, not mine. Achieving a goal and being efficient doing it are two different things. Getting 99 slayer to make money may be a goal, although it won't be as efficient as DKS/tds/frosties. Efficiency is used to ACHIEVE a goal, not necessarily to determine whether that goal is efficient in and of itself. The later is decided based on your long and short term goals.