waheera1

So... Who remembers the Falador Massacre...?! I for one won't be logging in for a few days after the update comes...! In all seriousness, it's nice that people are excited about the return of the wild, but it wouldn't have done any harm to get a competent author to write about the problems it may bring. I know that many of us will have worked it out already, so it wouldn't necessarily be the best-received article ever, but it might just open peoples' eyes to what is coming. I've got a lot of friends who are seriously thinking about quitting when the gold farmers come storming back. I find it hard not to be sceptical about Jagex's new-found ability to curb it, so I think there could come a rather rude awakening for the optimists on re-release day... Specifics on the articles: 1st: Another thought for you - it is quite possible that Jagex have planned the re-release for months or years, merely using the poll results to back up the whole "well, you decided it" argument. It is also quite possible that they could have completed fabricated the results, though I don't believe they would stoop that low. I for one don't think it's going to do the game much good in the long term, but I liked the game before the G.E. and trade limits, I'm sure I'll survive the return to normal service! 2nd: I'd be curious to know if the author has made much money out of the current pvp system. Not because it would in any way invalidate the article, I just find it interesting to know the mentality of a community to which I clearly don't belong. (I've never once pked seriously, nor felt the urge to try). I'm glad the author dislikes the current pvp system - I have hated the stupid influx of wealth Jagex created. I realise I've rambled a bit here, but I basically enjoyed the article and it did make pking sound somewhat more entertaining than I'd ever thought possible.

Well, I've been away for a little while, but trying to read each update on the times when I can. Nice to see some new-ish topics being brought up, also seemingly the majority are to a better standard grammatically which I like a lot. Enjoying the progression of the fictional article, but as pointed out elsewhere there are still a few odd phrases that don't add up. Still, as I don't really have the time to offer edits myself, I'll not bother restating past criticisms. :)

I have to admit I got a wee bit annoyed by that, considering I had revised that article three times on my own, followed by two other revisions by two other people. We work hard to write these articles, and honestly, comments like that don't encourage us. Sorry I'm not an English major and that I don't get out the Bedford Handbook every time I write an article.<_< Apologies, please read my other responses for what will hopefully be some explanation of my strong criticism last night...! Much of what I said WAS designed to provoke a reaction, but by no means was it intended to belittle the efforts of the Times team. Forgiven. :shades: Although thanks to you, I have something to write about next month lol. So thanks. XD Hah, I'll look forward to reading that one then (I think! :P). On the contrary I know that the people who do these articles are not professional authors but do this type of thing because they love what they do. My point was that some are judging them as if they were. And there's nothing wrong with that. After all, from the reader's perspective, there's no difference. We just see published articles with a lower standard of quality than the other websites we look at. Why should we adopt a double standard? Agreed. Let us not also forget that despite the efforts of Racheya and other forum admins to tell us otherwise, the language of an article is inherent to its ability to communicate with the reader. If the language is faulty in any way, it denigrates the content of the article and rightly deserves to be highlighted as a notable point. Not saying flaming is acceptable, but some level of criticism for flaws should be expected. Not that I'm particularly questioning your logic, as I agree that pointless flame/spam/insult-fests are a pointless nuisance. I'm just curious as to why it has been deemed necessary to call out the Stasi on this, one of the more polite (and least read) feedback threads I've seen in a long time? In the case of this week's articles, there wasn't really a great deal to discuss, but I would disagree with anyone who claims that this week's thread is a degenerate flame-war.

On the contrary I know that the people who do these articles are not professional authors but do this type of thing because they love what they do. My point was that some are judging them as if they were. I too was unsure of your true intention with the first post you made - couldn't work out if you were sarcastically mocking the authors or the critical readership. There was a certain amount of ambiguity with it. Just so you know. :)

Storm, forgive me, I hadn't made the connection that yours was the start of a more lengthy series of fictional articles, which changes my viewpoint slightly. I very nearly made a comment earlier that I felt the level of description belonged in a more epic setting than the 2-3 article length of most fictionals on the Times, so it's good to know that that is exactly what will be following from this first chapter in due course. I still stand by my comments that it could have been better laid out but, given the novel I'm currently reading deliberately digresses to the point of absurdity in almost every chapter yet is still quite excellent, I shall endeavour to avoid making too many further comments or criticisms until I am able to read the full story upon its completion. Good luck!! I do hope that the "you guys" wasn't encompassing me as well (I was unsure given I'm one of only a handful of posters on here)?! If I gave any impression that I belonged in that grouping then I apologise, it was not my intention.

Well I do understand that for those like yourself that are not native English speakers/writers, writing for the times is a real challenge. Let me be the first to congratulate you for bothering and having the time to make that effort. Please understand that any criticisms are made without any personal insults intended, but it's nice to see that you took it so well! :D The first sentence: '“We want to be more community-focused” is a phrase of a great importance to Jagex.' is actually, "a phrase of great importance to Jagex." Petty I know, but also strictly correct. Once I've dealt with all the other comments this week I'll try to find time to edit your article in the way that I would've written it and send it via PM or something. If I forget, just send me a little message in a few days and I'll be sure to get down to it as soon as I can. :) Edit: And thanks for the cut and paste job on my posts, Tripsis. :D

Ok so I still haven't worked out exactly how to respond to multiple people in the same post, so it'll have to come in a succession of responses, if anyone of the mods wants to hack them up and put them together, feel free. Well, speaking purely for myself, I wasn't even aware that there was a writing contest... I doubt I'd've entered the competition even if I did, but it might explain why there were so few submissions. As a disclaimer to all future comments in this topic, I should let you know that my first post was written at the end of a 20 hour day so I was probably less tolerant than usual. Hence, in this case, the flippant comment about the goat! I would also like to point out that I wasn't describing the current Times as an elephant graveyard, merely pointing out that the editorial panel should be careful to avoid this becoming the case. This comment was largely borne of the fact that in many of the recent Times feedback threads there has been an incredible amount of criticism for the quality of grammar/editing. In the past it hasn't really bothered me, in spite of regular criticism, but this week it did impact on my enjoyment (possibly owing in part to the lateness of the hour as well) hence being so brutal in my criticism. Storm, with specific regard to your article, I'm afraid I didn't enjoy it as much as I have some of your other posts. I wouldn't say it was the best fictional article I've read on here either, the impression I got being that there was simply too much information in the length of article that you had. Whilst I appreciated the fact that you made an effort to explain the context of the story within the fremennik lifestyle, rather than just making an abstract collection of characters made fremennik solely by geography, it often broke up the natural flow of the story. Also, you really must be very careful with your use of tenses to ensure that if it changes, it still makes sense in the context. That flaw alone damaged the retelling of the story significantly (at least in my view), which is a shame given it shows promise as a very interesting fictional article. Oh and as for the "literally" comment, I never really had much of a problem with the phrase until I read the aforementioned commentary on the use of the word. It's actually quite entertaining, if you listen out for all the inappropriate occasions when people use the word, as it is used almost exclusively to comment on something that in all probability could not or did not happen. :P Basically its when the conversation devolves into mixed up words and angry grunting, generally limited to barbarians and dwarves :D On a more serious note waheera, If you have the power to fix something that you care about you have two options, work to fix it or stop caring. Talk to mirror or Racheya about becoming an editor, I know I'd be glad to have you. Haha, thanks Emerson, nice riposte! :P As for becoming an editor, what does it entail? Sad fact of the matter is that I would probably find it very difficult to commit the time I would find myself wanting to give to the project... Still, if anyone wants to fill me in on what would be expected of the post then I might be able to help out a bit, that is if you were being serious! :P As I said earlier, I was making my first comments at a time when I was probably at my least tolerant. I think the times is a fine institution within Tip.It, but of course for that to continue it must not fall short of the high standards set by its authors and editors over the years. I realise it can be difficult to accept blunt criticism, but I thought it was probably the best way to elicit a response! I wasn't trying to say that any of the authors or editors were "crap" as such, but there were several mistakes in each article that stuck out to me in my sleep-deprived state. Re-reading, the 2nd article in fact has only a couple of errors - look for a couple of extraneous words and you should know how to fix it - so I was probably reacting vociferously based on general frustration at the articles this week. Rest assured I don't take any pleasure in insulting other people, their intelligence, or in this case their ability to write. Apologies to all those that it seems I've offended. I have to admit I got a wee bit annoyed by that, considering I had revised that article three times on my own, followed by two other revisions by two other people. We work hard to write these articles, and honestly, comments like that don't encourage us. Sorry I'm not an English major and that I don't get out the Bedford Handbook every time I write an article.<_< Apologies, please read my other responses for what will hopefully be some explanation of my strong criticism last night...! Much of what I said WAS designed to provoke a reaction, but by no means was it intended to belittle the efforts of the Times team.

Wow, looks like Tip.It is in dire need of a proof-reader. Gave up on the first article after frustration at the ridiculous "What do you do you do..." of the 2nd paragraph, the personalisation of inanimate entities in the 3rd, etc. In the interests of my own self-stated pedantry I should point out that the first sentence of the entire article is poorly written/edited too. I don't take great pleasure or pride in being a grammar Nazi, but I quite simply couldn't be bothered to read on after an irritating start. The second article is similarly littered with schoolboy errors that make an otherwise interesting new topic frustrating to read. 3rd article was slightly too aimless for my liking and sadly once again was let down by poor editing. The 3rd paragraph, for example, goes from a representation of the present, to a description of the past. No paragraph can read: "this time is different. We knew they were coming" if it is to appear cohesive to the readers. 4th article: just because I'm feeling critical, this one can't escape either. I recently read a commentary by a scholar who resents the word "literally", which has led me to the same disenchanted state. It is ludicrous to suggest that Brundt "literally" ploughed a path through his subjects. I'll gladly lay down a fiver to point out that it would never "literally" happen that he should do such a thing. Good luck proving me wrong. :P Also, as I read along, what relevance does "I swear I just heard a goat" have? "I swear I've eaten cake before" might well be true, but is an equally irrelevant statement. Dare I ask, how is it possible to both mince one's words, yet argue ferociously? It's not quite a mutually exclusive state, but it reads as though the author has just reinterpreted a phrase without understanding what the original "[he/she/it] doesn't mince [their] words" actually means. It would make far more sense if they were both straight-talking (ie didn't mince their words) and therefore argued a lot, which begs the question be asked why this bizarre attempted rearrangement?! ------------------ I could go into far more detail on each of the 4 articles this week, but there seems little point. They are ALL let down badly by a lack of understanding in basic grammatical functions, with the end result that they all read as though composed by youths lacking the appropriate understanding. Perhaps this is the job of the editor? I'm not going to blast the authors further, they may not even be English speakers naturally, in which case they are all to be commended for achieving better results than the majority of English speakers could in the corresponding foreign language. Suffice to say that if this is the direction tip.it times is due to head towards in the future, the times will become something of an elephants' graveyard for redundant authors. Edit: How's this for irony: Typos/grammatical flaws are to be PMed to Racheya, the person with a mis-spelt signature pic...! :P

Well I have to say I'm coming down strongly against article 1, for a number of reasons. Firstly, as has been said before, the author seeks to misrepresent a large portion of the RS community with assertions about widespread dissatisfaction. I'll not pretend I enjoyed sitting through a game of SW for Nomad's Requiem, having played it several times to help friends in the past. Nor will I lie and say that after viewing the BA tutorial, I have since been back to play the game which never interested me anyway. At the same time, if it is relevant in any way to the storyline of a quest I simply cannot see why it is such a heinous crime to include a tutorial or game as part of the quest's requirements. I'm sure most serious questers would take an easy minigame that could potentially open up fun training routes in the future, over the light puzzle in MEP2... Claims that SW is almost exclusively full of bug-abusers and low-lifes is insulting to many and grossly inaccurate anyway. Conquest was very favourably received on a different private forum that I am a member of, many of whom are what might be considered "high level". Anyone who's ever tried for lumberjack outfits will dispute the claim that talon beast charms are the only useful drop from temple trekking (it is hugely lucrative courtesy of the rewards - pure ess/ores/seeds etc and snakeskins or other gathered items). Stealing creation remains very popular with virtually all skillers seeking to save money on many buyable skills such as construction or crafting, such that if you know where to look there is almost always a non-combat game running alongside the dedicated worlds. Anyone asking for proof would do well to simply look at any of these minigames, the proof is quite clearly self-evident. The lack of knowledge and understanding implied by the author makes me question whether indeed they have ever played any of the minigames to view the kinds of community that exist for virtually all of the team games. A personal dislike of any element of the game is a perfectly good topic for an article, but should be clearly labelled as a personal view. Blithely generalising about the alleged opinions of the masses when so clearly ill-informed is precisely what will open you up to the criticisms seen on this thread. The two should be kept carefully apart. Article 2: Yes, it does irritate me somewhat, but generally the kinds of people that regularly change their names around are the kinds of people that rapidly find themselves removed from my friends list. Apart from a few friends with long-standing desires to change their names, most of my good friends have not been interested in this update and therefore it does not really affect me greatly. The article said nothing interesting or new on the topic and was quite surprisingly short, all things considered. Fictional article: Sorry to be harsh, but this series isn't up to previous standards of fictional articles. It all seems a bit twee for a storyline that supposedly involves torture, sabotage and dark arts and, although I don't ever want to read an article that brings such horrors to life on this fansite, it doesn't really fit together too well. Some parts are dreadfully predictable, others ham-fisted and others simply ridiculous. How, for example, can there be a "gaping hole in the land around the castle" when most of the castle apparently fell into the moat and the remainder is meant to be simply on fire? If it's a singular gaping hole that is around the castle, surely the castle must be surrounded by this vast emptiness? Also, what about the all the stonework, earth and water that MUST have been blown all around falador if the explosion is as big as would have been necessary? I'm pretty sure Sir Tiffy, for all his stereotyped British attributes, would be in no fit state to ponce around when considering his proximity to this gaping hole and whatever was blown out of it... Yes, I'm being incredibly pedantic and will probably come in for criticism because of it, but what marks out the greatest writers is that they show incredible attention to detail in things like that. Just a few words can entirely change the tone and meaning of an entire letter/email/paragraph/sentence if used "correctly", so it really is important to consider what is implied by sensational statements such as the one quoted previously. If it is overworked, it becomes unbelievable regardless of the fantasy setting, at which point it begins to become boring.

Your first sentence is ridiculous. NOBODY has suggested that either article was single-faceted, or narrow. Many people have pointed out that Stormrage's article was marred by a silly tirade, also that the second article was too similar to previous articles to be of much substance. There is a clear difference. For my part I had no problem with Storm telling us about the trips to the pub, it was fashioned similarly to the Jagex-released Golden Ticket interviews etc, so it seems to be a working format. That said, as you will read below, the fact that Storm and other members of the "elite" RF2010 club got on well doesn't really provide an accurate barometer of success... I can go to an event with a great bunch of friends who all get on well and it still be a terrible event regardless. Sure, I'd mind less in company, but it wouldn't make the event inherently any better. I am pleased for Stormrage that he managed to make several acquaintances of like-minded people, but that merely points to the fact that a lot of the people were like Storm. None of us can honestly say that the people at RF2010 either were or weren't annoying nerds in some peoples' eyes, nor that their idea of "fun" matches in with general perceptions of fun and normality outside of the gaming world. To attempt to assert any such statement otherwise - by either yourself in favour of these possible nerds, or by an angry ranter against them - is pointless and will perpetuate itself rather like the "Evolution v Creationism" debate. Neither can prove the other 100% wrong, but a lot of hatred can be stirred up even if it is utterly misplaced.

Because my two posts discuss different articles with large amounts of text, I shall not combine them even though they run side by side. If any forum mod sees the need to combine them (possibly with a hide section for matter quoted from other posters), please feel free. I lack the knowledge of how these forums work to do such a thing. I feel your closing sentence deals most pertinently with the issues at hand here. Your rant, on a major fansite article, was utterly misplaced and poorly judged. Very few, if any, of the people who directed insults at you will read, or indeed care, about your experiences or your opinions. Whilst you have been criticised on other aspects of the article by others who either were there, or felt your report may have missed more interesting facts for those who didn't go, my sole grievance lies with your pointless tirade. As a foil to your emotions, consider that perhaps you and your fellow participants are among the minority who feel such outrage about being labelled as geeks. Several people on this response topic alone are self-confessed nerds, whether or not they went to the event, so there need be no shame in saying "Yes, I am a nerd." You will ALWAYS receive abuse for behaviour which is deemed unusual, immature, or "just wrong" - I'm afraid that is, as someone else posted, a fact of life. I have come across several hardcore gamers in my time, mostly perfectly nice people, but generally not people I have a whole lot in common with. Where I spent my youth playing rugby, cricket, football etc, I can be confronted by someone who shares absolutely no interest in such things because they grew up on a diet of gaming. I'll not be the one to hurl insults, but given such people are generally in the minority, it is to be expected that people will think them unusual and subsequently express those thoughts... The anonymity of a computer screen sadly gives many people the "right" to crassly abuse those with whom they have little in common. But similarly, in my neighbourhood in East London, if you were found in a bar dressed in RS fancy dress, it is a pretty safe bet that you would be leaving the same bar without your wallet, maybe even a few teeth. These are sad facts of life, it is unrealistic of you to set yourself up in such a noticeably different manner whilst expecting people to view you as "normal". Some people feel threatened, some people feel confused, some people are just asshats, if you cannot weather the storm of abuse from them without such a furious and ill-judged backlash as was in your article then it is you who comes off looking worse. You have done RuneFesters few favours by it. Your opinions and emotions ARE important, both to you and to those around you, but there is a time and a place to express them and I'm sorry to say that the front page of Tip.It is neither. Now for the money side of things: I'm utterly inexperienced in the world of gaming conventions, but I will go by what others with more experience have said. There was no proof at all that RuneFest would ever prove to be worth the £75 ticket price plus any associated travel and lodgings, so that would instantly be a turn-off for many people in these times of economic hardship. During my work on a playscheme for schoolchildren this year, we were confronted by parents who said that £35 a week was beyond their means, despite it covering 20 hours of childcare at an extremely low cost of just £1.75 an hour, fully £4.45 below the minimum wage, and likely to be closer to £6-7 lower than what any childminder would charge. £75 for just one day suddenly looks a whole lot more excessive. Let's say that someone from Manchester wished to travel down for the event - that'll be another £20 for train tickets. Then tube travel across London? £4-5 minimum depending on your arrival point and tube route, so it's suddenly become £100 for a day. Even someone from Kent is likely to pay £90+ for the day... That is a lot of money to be gambling on a completely untested convention, without even considering the probable cost of flights/Eurostar/ferry for those from further afield. Many people are increasingly frustrated by Jagex's oversights and failings, so even the once golden name of Jagex could be seen as insufficient guarantee of the quality of the event. Comparisons with music festivals seem a little fatuous here I'm afraid, rather like suggesting that RuneFest is like the World Cup Final so should sell out...! I feel I must also dispute your "wheat from chaff" comment. I'll not doubt that the others at RuneFest2010 were well matched to you and the other positive posters on this thread, but are you saying that people unwilling to spend £75 on an event of this type are somehow unworthy? In what way does an arbitrary charge of £75 assure that the "best" kind of people were there? It is in no way elitism, since there is no hint at all that there was any qualification to join the "elite" sect except the trusting willingness to part with £75 of your money. Perhaps I should charge £500 an hour in the hope that people are fooled into thinking I'm the best in the world at my job?! Setting yourselves up as the elite in this fashion shows the same closed-minded approach that leads many members to dismiss the thoughts and comments of non-members out of hand without even giving them due attention. Even completely discounting the comments above, do you really believe wholeheartedly that if free entry had been announced honestly before the tickets had gone it would have ruined the day for you? It is ridiculous to suggest such a thing and casts an unfair and unfounded slur on vast numbers of players who were put off by the pricing and secrecy. Perhaps there would have been more nutters, but in a nuthouse, is that such a bad thing?! :P I'm pretty sure that at the very least it would've served to prevent the torrent of abuse you've apparently received to prompt your outbursts.

Why are you assuming that people are grinding for the fun of it? The whole point of the article is that they don't do it for the fun of it, or at least it's not their main goal. You can very well tell that these people aim for some kind of "ultimate account" which they plan using for fun later on, but they never get to the part where they have fun. No, we shouldn't care about how people like to have fun. But we should start caring when those people start having way too much influence in the progress of the game. See how it's becoming more elitist because of these elite diaries, and a level 120 skill? That's the problem. The game should remain as accessible as possible to everyone who pays for it and therefore contributes to its improvement, and not manipulated by hardcore players/no-lifers that whine all the time just because they can't find anything else to do in real life. You have the freedom to enjoy the game the way you want. But your freedom still ends where other people's freedom begins. Can you honestly tell me that the people grinding levels derive no pleasure at all from either the experience or the outcome? I suspect that if this really was the case, Runescape would have virtually no 99ed skills because, let's face it, every single skill requires some kind of grind in order to level. Players discern a "need" to level based upon the prospect of greater wealth/enjoyment/"social" status etc and are therefore bound to the inevitability of grinding a skill at some point. Whether or not fun is their "main goal" seems somewhat irrelevant to me, if your assertion is that grinding cannot ever be fun. I for one find any skill incredibly tedious, yet I still have 4 99s, 2 other skills in the 90s, and several not far behind (even if that lot has taken over 6 years to achieve for me). It's been slow progress and the levels bring little enjoyment on their own, but there are so many activities that I have taken part in (often with friends and clan-members) whilst gaining those levels that it has for the most part been an enjoyable ride. In a way, you could say that the grind HAS been fun, even if the fun was not directly derived from the grind. I sympathise with your stance on the elite diaries and other high level content. I am 100% behind you when it comes to the stupidity of having a 120 skill, even if it does look like making sense in the context of dungeoneering. At the same time however, you have to remember that for many people, what YOU want is not necessarily what THEY want. Just as you mention the necessity for sensible co-existence, you must therefore apply it to your own desires. Clearly your account is well-balanced - as your level breakdown shows - but, if it is lacking in the areas demanded by elite content, should that require that those with the elite stats be "penalised" because of you? Let me assure you that as level-based elitism beckons, you will find your perspective has changed as you actively seek to overcome the greatest challenges, pushing both yourself and your pixellated avatar to new limits. Just because something is "hard" does not in any way mean that it is not fun, or that the journey to successfully completing that task cannot also be fun. Might I also add that it is not just no-lifers or "hardcore players" who whine? Just as Stormrage has demonstrated by his outrage at being labelled a geek, I cannot give you any proof that I am not a no-lifer or hardcore player, but I will assure you that I am not. Either way, I don't habitually whine about all the "nooby" content that gets released. Similarly, the fact that I cannot hope to achieve the vast majority of the new elite tasks has not prompted me (nor will it) to hurl a bitter diatribe at Jagex for failing to meet MY needs. Nor have any of my high-levelled friends. Be careful to keep a distinction between high-levelled "casual" players and no-lifers (and any other class of person inhabiting the space between): their approaches, opinions, lifestyles, social skills etc will ALL be different. You might even find you like some of them, appreciate their personalities and experience, God-forbid you might even form your strongest friendships with some of them!! :P By the same token, you may well find that lower-levelled players constantly whining about their own inadequacies becomes tedious very quickly.

Is it not? That pays for more than a week's rent for me... To Stormrage: I live in London and had no desire to go, for a number of reasons. Yes, I did stereotype the sort of people that would be there - perhaps rightly, according to your withering report most definitely wrongly. But that is my sole grievance with this account - the rant. I enjoyed reading about the event which I had hitherto written off as a waste of a day, when all of a sudden I was confronted with a vitriolic broadside. It was out of character with the rest of the article, which clearly promoted the sense of community engendered in the event's participants, serving no useful purpose at all. It is your opinion that it was not a geekfest, an opinion that is perfectly valid and you are entitled to. But what was the point of striking out at people who suspected that the only people willing to pay £75 would be the diehard (read: "geeky") fans? For the sake of an argument, how are we to know that you're not simply a complete geek yourself?! A further factor was the cost: to many, £75 may seem a small price to pay for such an event. To me it seemed overpriced and unnecessary. I do not like to throw money around when it could be better spent elsewhere, as I judged it could be, so I didn't. Even if it had been advertised as a free event I suspect I would not have gone, because it really didn't interest me that much. I would not ever have use for a T-Shirt bearing a Runescape slogan, nor do I have particular need of any of the other free gifts given out. My knowledge of programming is not sufficient that I would be likely to care much about the "making of" style talks, whilst I rarely have time to think of things I'd like to see in the game to take my suggestions along. I have never had any desire to dress up as a gaming character. So you see, it just wasn't the right event for me. MMG's allusion that only the most devoted and ardent fans would attend because of the price is foolish - it deliberately and unfairly cut out many fans who are genuinely without the disposable income for the travel and advertised ticket price, purely by an arbitrary monetary figure. I fully realise that the main focus of the rant was on people who had been vociferously criticising the event, the company and the punters rather than myself, but it spoilt the article and failed to take into account the many reasons people may have had for such criticism in the first place. Maybe it was jealousy, does it matter? Could you not rise above it? Could you not ignore the critics? Up until your pointless rant I had been impressed at how well-run the event sounded and how much fun you and your fellow participants had. Edit: Sorry to say, but your abusive responses to tortilliachip on page 2 of this discussion topic seem to suggest nothing of his/her own jealousy, rather that you carry a COLLOSSAL chip on your shoulder because of the alleged stereotyping that has occurred. Apparently the tolerant and respectful response to your tirades must surely be "Shut the hell up!". Still, at least you said "please"... 2nd Article: This is boring to me now. Why is level hunting so popular, you ask? Well, because it gives players a tangible aim and a means to compare and compete. Simple as that. Sure, I agree that the grind approach seems to be missing the point, but who are we to judge what is fun for other people? If they get their kicks from having a better level than someone else and that constitutes entertainment in their eyes, surely that achieves the very same as your ideas on what "fun" is? Clans, for example, offer many of the group collaboration/"fun" events that you mentioned. Even solo players can interact and perform activities with their friends, the opportunity is theirs to take. If they don't take it, so be it, but is there really any point in criticising someone else just because they don't play in the way that you, in your seat of Godly wisdom, deem best?

Why would anyone ever respect someone who had the bad manners to say gtfo?

Racheya, you missed one of the most glaringly obvious reasons for peoples' discontent at recent failures by the Jagex team: twitter hints. The combination of a vague outline from BTS followed by specific weekly hints on twitter means that by Sunday evening, we are all able to find out what the week's updates should be. What I find most remarkable is that Jagex have still released twitter hints for both Dungeoneering 1.5 AND Clue Scroll updates this month, knowing full well that on Friday things were not ready for release and therefore leaving a pathetic 10 or so office hours in which to solve any problems on Monday and Tuesday morning. If an update is not ready on Sunday when the twitter hint goes out, they'd receive a much better reaction by not releasing a twitter hint for an update that most likely will not happen, rather than confirming an update that is meant to happen but clearly cannot. Perhaps I'm unusual, in that because of the expectations placed on me in my line of work (punctuality and competence at the least), I expect the same of Jagex. If I promise to be somewhere doing a certain job at a certain time, I am either there or I lose my job. I expect the same high standards of Jagex when they beam out a promise of content updates so close to the projected release date. As for the second article: politeness on slayer tasks is always a delight to come across. A good conversation always makes a task more enjoyable - I HATE steel/iron dragon tasks, since they take so long and rarely reward me with anything, but I met a friendly chap this evening to chat to and the experience improved ten-fold. It would be wonderful if people could simply engage common sense and communicate a bit better, in all aspects of the game, to make it what it is meant to be: fun.

16-17-92-60934199 page 13, post 1 for example. But is there anywhere where they've ever given any indication or hint or anything to suggest that they'd do it or even that it was under consideration? Because it seems like such an obviously pointless and stupid idea. Oh I fully agree - I see no need to raise the cap either. Had a lot of discussions with people on RSOF about it too, but it seems there are plenty of people out there excessively eager to see the level caps raised even though it is utterly unnecessary. I suspect most people suggesting there may/will be a raise to level caps are interpreting the introduction of dungeoneering as the first 120 skill as a harbinger of things to come... Thankyou for posting that QFC for me - it's at least moderately reassuring to know that there are currently no firm plans to introduce that pointless update. :) @ Vox1st. Have you considered that since slayer gives 1/4 the xp for each skill that is awarded per kill, you will find it impossible to keep combat below 85 for slayer 99, unless you pointlessly rack up 52m xp in just one combat skill...

But there's no proof to completely disregard it aswell so in essence it's sort of a Devil's Proof moment. No proof to disregard it? What do you mean? :huh: Have Jagex categorically denied that level caps will ever be raised? I'm certainly unaware of it, but willing to be corrected, hence Requiem's comment that we can't be completely sure of the fact that level caps won't be increased at some point in the not-too-distant future. As a general commentary, it is a shame that requiem made use of several flawed analogies and poorly written assertions. To my reading, the points contained within were not so very difficult to fathom, whilst being at least reasonably close to the mark throughout. Pedantry seems to be taking precendence in these critiques over an assessment of core substance. I'll not deny I prefer a well-written article (as troacctid often delivers on their blog etc), but since I was able to see past the basic inaccuracies to what I think were the points beyond, I see no reason to criticise the subject matter, merely its delivery. The second article on the other hand did irritate me a lot, for one reason only. It is RIDICULOUS to complain about quests being too high-levelled for you unless you yourself are already at what is deemed a highly competent level. Are you saying you'd prefer it to be possible to fight back the elite black knights and balance elemental from, say, level 50? Or perhaps you'd like it to be possible to beat Summer's End with a whopping level 10 constitution?! I assure you that the satisfaction of reaching the required levels and then completing the quests you're looking forward to will provide you with far greater satisfaction than a succession of pointlessly easy quests would. If you rob quests of their challenges you leave them stripped bare of much of the substance that makes some of the best ones so enjoyable to complete. I too enjoy quests greatly - I rarely allow more than a day or so to pass before completing each new quest - but I can guarantee that when you reach the higher levels that you currently yearn for you will have little desire to see Jagex acquiesce to the desires of the plebeians with their lower levels below you. It is a day to look forward to with relish, rather than BBQ sauce.... Erm, I mean, rather than resentment. :P

So you say. That is how you play, but not most people. As I said before, the main problem with the article is its completely based on assumptions, and those are wrong for many people. Likewise your criticism is based on an assumption. Have you ever fooled around with a good friend doing something almost entirely pointless? I haven't done it for a long time, but it was probably the most entertaining few hours of my Runescape life when I last did it. You don't have to be a particular kind of aimless player to enjoy being able to step back from it all once in a while and just mess around and it is for that reason that I actually quite enjoyed the article. Can you actually prove, any more than the author, that either one of you is right or wrong? (This isn't meant to sound like a personal attack by the way, I'm just playing devil's advocate for a moment!) It is wrong to assume that nobody plays for fun anymore - I certainly wouldn't still be playing if it didn't bring some modicum of enjoyment, but at the same time the basic point of the article seems solidly based on firm logic. Actually mine isn't. I never said that how I play was how others should, or that others didn't have fun playing how I do. Show me one assumption in my statement. I've played my fair of hide 'n' seek, gone to the KQ, barrows, etc. I do these for fun, nothing else. That is a HUGE assumption. The article would have been far better if instead the author had as his thesis something along the lines of "The beauty of RuneScape is that there is no right or wrong way to play the game, within the rules. One can sit around chatting, play hide 'n' seek with friends, or try and make as much money as they can. The beauty of this game is in the different paths we all take, whether it is going for an incredibly rare untrimmed cape, or trying to make 300m for that GWD set. The beauty is in deciding how to spend your hard earn cash, or to beg at the GE for cash, if you so please. The beauty is in the freedom to do what you want, when you want, with those who, although virtual characters in a virtual world, may really be amazing friends" For the sake of being picky here, yes you did make an assumption. You cannot claim that "most people" don't play in a particular style, without having yourself interviewed more than half of the total players of runescape. I suspect you have not. Pedantry aside, my comment was levelled at you for the sole reason that you suggested Swedishboy was wrong to approve of the article's inherent message of fun being the most important factor, because that apparently isn't how people play. Unfortunately, that is an assumption that you will find hard to back up with unassailable proof. Your second point there - technically it is not an assumption, it is a very dubious statement of "fact" but I believe was intended more as an indicator of the author's personal view. For my money, the article we were given is much more interesting than a pointless thesis on how great diversity is. It is nice to read an opinionated article and debate it rather than just settle for an article which says: "isn't this nice...?" But again, that's just my opinion. You're entitled to your own and I won't try to persuade you otherwise, but I'm not convinced your solutions would be quite so palatable to Tip.It readers as you seem to think. Again, just a theory. :P

So you say. That is how you play, but not most people. As I said before, the main problem with the article is its completely based on assumptions, and those are wrong for many people. Likewise your criticism is based on an assumption. Have you ever fooled around with a good friend doing something almost entirely pointless? I haven't done it for a long time, but it was probably the most entertaining few hours of my Runescape life when I last did it. You don't have to be a particular kind of aimless player to enjoy being able to step back from it all once in a while and just mess around and it is for that reason that I actually quite enjoyed the article. Can you actually prove, any more than the author, that either one of you is right or wrong? (This isn't meant to sound like a personal attack by the way, I'm just playing devil's advocate for a moment!) It is wrong to assume that nobody plays for fun anymore - I certainly wouldn't still be playing if it didn't bring some modicum of enjoyment, but at the same time the basic point of the article seems solidly based on firm logic.

Really? It's not as if it's a surprise. Have you ever heard of a service giving a 7-day free trial that requires a credit card and doesn't auto-renew? It's not exactly fine print either. It's right at the top of the page. Not to mention that we all know MMG is a grasping toad anyway - broken promises and the like simply cannot surprise me anymore under Jagex's current leadership...

Well, if you say so... But that wasn't the stated reason Jagex gave with the update. If they're now saying that's the reason then they really should think things through before doing them so that they actually know why they're performing an update and can be honest with us from the start. As far as I (and pretty much everyone else I know) can make out, there was nothing wrong with the system as it existed. Nobody actually used the boots in place of dragon/rune/addy boots etc on a regular basis outside some very rarefied occasions, so it was all entirely unnecessary. I don't believe you can accurately predict the impact of any one event on the Runescape economy after so little time and with a complete lack of data. All we (you and I both) have are assumptions. I'm willing to make an educated guess which seems to support the blindingly obvious fact that an influx of billions of gp WILL have an effect of some kind on the economy regardless of how small that shift may be, especially when compared to the daily impact of overpriced pvp drops and the like. Does your ego feel better for that? If you actually want anyone to read that, might I suggest you become re-acquainted with your 'enter' key at the very least.

why on earth would Jagex want to roll-back on a designed effect. They wanted the climbing boots to have a higher alch value than d and rune boots. They weren't worried about the amount of cash entering the game. The only thing they would like to rollback is the overreaction of some and that cannot be done anyway. Because you have a personal problem with an update it doesn't mean the update didn't do what it was meant to do. For Jagex this update was probably successful were it not for the fact that people blew up. Which they probably didn't see coming because they know a little bit more about the runecape economy than we do. They weren't worried about the big picture. They just underestimated the gut reaction and jealousy of many. How can you predict irrational thought? Well, it is really difficult. They probably would need a dedicated team of psychologists to just get a hint of what may set the community off. When I heard first about the update I thought nothing of it, and that actually hasn't changed. But for some it is apparently really a difficult thing to process the fact that some people might have gotten rich over an update. And then the speculation started on inflation and some people saw an opportunity here. --- No honestly, there was no rollback possible because there was no error or mistake in the design of the update. There was just a miscalculation of the human element, part of the community overreacted. And nobody can rollback a human mind. I know this is all speculative writing on the part of every poster on this article, but how do you know that Jagex really achieved what they were intending with this? Personally I find that it is all too easy these days to believe that Jagex simply did not intend the end result because they did not do sufficient research. There was no reason to make THIS change, that is the problem. 75k, or even 45k for the alchs, is a completely unreasonable price considering the ACTUAL market that existed for the boots. That is my problem with this update. It hasn't made or lost me any money at all, I just dislike the "If it isn't broken, we're not trying hard enough" approach that Jagex seem to be implementing at the moment. Nobody cared that climbing boots could achieve a 1700% price hike from Sherpa to G.E., that was the way the economy for those boots had functioned for years. To waste developer time on a fix that didn't need to happen makes me wonder exactly what Jagex were thinking. What exactly is irrational about the logic laid out in my previous post? If you can explain that, I may perhaps understand your point, but at present I can't help but be a little suspicious that perhaps you did very nicely out of the recent update and therefore are keen to defend it.

Haha of course, the indomitable Ts_Stormrage needs no slack, I was trying to make more of the point you made that it's nice to be told what's right too! But you got my point anyway. Also as another point for article 1: The Varrock Sword Shop recently got a monkey trader from whom Dragon Scimitars could be purchased. Why? Because nobody could be bothered with going to ape atoll to buy one and therefore they could not be purchased on G.E. This simply was not the case with boots, for which there was a comparatively steady supply. Even so, surely if climbing boot prices were so far off it would have been a simple matter to add a nepalese trader (:P) to the Varrock Armour Shop selling the boots?! Guaranteed that would have been met with much more favourable reviews than the current farce Jagex have created.

Article 1: I agree with your basic principles on this matter, but I think you missed the real problems. Yes a lot of people got rich, and that's not necessarily "fair", but that is by no means the biggest problem. A friend of mine condensed the issues (as he saw them) into 3 very neat points, quoted below. "1) It brought a fairly large amount of gold into the game, which will have at least some effect on the economy. 2) Nobody aside from really desperate people who pay an extreme opportunity cost by not wanting to hop worlds to a non-PvP world for the GE actually paid 75k for climbing boots. Therefore, this entire update was based on wrong information and therefore Jagex looks completely idiotic for refusing to make any changes to fix it. 3) It ruined the worth of climbing boots. For all purposes they were previously used for, they are now worthless. Because of the high shop price, they are no longer cheap throwaway gear, so welfare questers and PKers won't use them. Also, their 45k death price means they may actually protect over something more desirable (like a ****ing Fire Cape), so they're no longer good for using at Corporeal Beast or any other activity where you stand a decent chance of dying. All-in-all, aside from the people who gained tens/hundreds of millions in gold overnight, this update benefits nobody and was completely worthless. Whomever thought it up needs to be re-assigned to Customer Support." My own take on this: To refute the arguments of some players stating that point number 1) as shown here is irrelevant. There need not be an overall 10% shift in the RS economy, since the climbing boot changes should theoretically only affect p2p items. As a result, this could quite easily see dragon bones rocket AGAIN to even more ridiculous prices, along with countless other member items. For this update to significantly affect p2p prices (at least on a short-term basis) would take far fewer than the 10m+ boots speculated at by another person on this forum. 2) As stated, 75k is ridiculously optimistic as a price margin for sales. With the 60k price restriction and previous G.E. prices of around 200gp per pair, 75k would have required junk trading for the boots. That is a ridiculous premise and I believe can almost be categorically denied as a regular occurance. While it was easy to buy the boots for 12gp and shift them for 200gp approx, notching up roughly 5.2k profit per inventory, I have never seen anything to suggest that Jagex's re-pricing is an accurate reflection of real market value. 3) Can't really elaborate on what was said above. Climbing boots are now virtually useless to all but the most ardent pures. Article 2: An enjoyable and accurate read. Even in the two short "letters to the editor" that I've submitted over the years, I've found myself often wandering away from the initial topic. Indeed several have been scrapped because I just couldn't make it a compelling enough read. We do understand your pain and in a way I guess this was an excellent article with which to remind the more vociferous critics to cut you some slack every once in a while! :P

This poll is flawed - if you look at the rewards themselves, they all show a degree of promise. The general concensus seems to be that the prices need adjusting, but this does not fit any of the poll options. Option 2 is the one suggested for those who view the rewards as I do, but it rather implies that the rewards need changing rather than the reward prices. In order to achieve anything the poll needs to have an option relating to the pricing specifically, so as to avoid any confusion over what the mystical 'changes' might constitute.