Jonanananas

givin my article the last polish =)

I thought the puzzle isn't randomized? Or is it?

OFFT: On Korasi's sword, I hear its not actually 50-150% of your max hit, but 50 lp up to 150% of your max hit. The KB is not reliable, and this has come up so I'd figure just to ask here ;) Well, on the grouping system, of course it's never going to be as good as a handpicked team. But I think it's a better alternative than crying F35 please! If you have to choose one of those two, the first one would be better imo. I didn't read the second artice because I didn't want to get spoiled but it's simple to answer. The VSTB is grandmaster because of its requirements. Nothing, and absolutely nothing else. Why is Nomad's requiem Grandmaster? because of the requirements to kill nomad. Nothing, and absolutely nothing else. And yes, the same goes for WGS. So I can't see why there would be any arguing about this. And tbh, we already know the system is not 100% consistent, and it's impossible to do so unless you make one category for every quest. Fictional, meh, I'm kind of missing a point to it. Combat descriptions never really manage to fascinate me.

1.you don't read what he said. In those times, it was clearly bots who drove the price of sharks down. You babble about Rocktails when it's clearly not the time he had meant. Also, "there were shark bots since its inception" is no argument. There is a slight difference between 1 and 1000000 bots. the number of bots increased, prices of sharks decreased. 2. I disagree with Lie 1 completely. The supply from bots is not insecure at all. I estimate 80% of raw materials come out of bots. While bots do have some downtime with major updates, they spring back within HOURS. Look at soulwars, red chinchopas, or Ivy. Bots are always there. Updates WILL NOT stop bots. If bots were removed, raw materials will skyrocket. The vast majority of raw materials come from bots, after all, who REALLY wants to mine, woodcut, or hunt for weeks on end? A small group of people use the amount of red chinchompas it takes from 63-99 hunter. I guarantee you if bots were all removed, red chinchopas will, at the very least, double in price. The bots are the ones keeping the economy stable. Without them prices will shoot up. So you agree that without bots prices would shoot up? Ok so the disagreement is not so complete? You say 80% of raw materials is bot-generated? Again not so far form what I have stated... Bots doing Ivy? What?! Oh the logic in your text is somewhat flawed, but i'll try to decypher your main point... The only thing we seem to disagree on is the fact that YOU think bots will always be around to do the dirty work for us, while I think that bots are nowhere near undetectable... The fact that Jagex backs my statement up, sort of negates your argument entirely? To clarify the Ivy reference, it is simply to show that bots will always be back in numbers. I could go on and on and list every single kind of bot I have met, but that is irrelevant. I do think bots will be around to do the dirty work for us. Do you REALLY have fun chopping 100k logs or catching30k chinchompas? Do you really want to do it? Is it fun? While bots are not undetectable, when one bot gets banned, two more are created. Look at Soul Wars as an example. Tons and tons of people were botting, tons and tons got banned. Look at it now. Do you see a difference in the amount of bots? Sure, you can ban bots, but no, my argument stands; there will never be a day where all the bots have gotten banned. 2.of course we will always have bots, but they are nowhere near secure. We have soon a lot of bots being banned already, sometimes in raw masses, and this clearly influenced the economy. Once again, there is a difference between 1 and 1000000 bots. 3.again, you do not read. Yes, manipulation clans drive the price up, but he never said they didn't. may I quote for you? "What merchant clans do is take advantage of both artificial and natural price fluctuations. If the price of, for example, Saradomin Brews shoot up for whatever reason, odds are that a merchant has already bought an ample supply of it." and those who participate with merch clans and get ripped off fall under the category of "stupid". may I quote for you? "The only people that would buy it at this peak price however, are the impatient, the rich and the stupid, none of which I have any sympathy for in this instance." not exactly the same thing, but he clearly states he has no sympathy for stupid people, and I don't have either for that matter. It's their own fault. 4.of course correlation does not imply causation, but it is interesting that the common trade index behaves like this, and there are logical reasons why this is because of dungeoneering. Maybe you're just underestimating the effect.

oooh this looks nice! I always wanted to write a second guest article, just haven't found a topic =( think...think...think... or I might try a fictional...but I never did those...

That aside, I really liked this week's articles! The economy article was great, it shed light upon different parts of the discussion and brought rational arguments into it. There's just one thing I disagree with, and that's merch/manipulation clans. I hope I haven't misunderstood you that you mean manipulation clans too. While your argument itself may be valid and I agree with it, there's a bigger problem. As nice as it would be for everyone to know that, this won't happen. Now, you say it's their own problem. But it isn't. Why do we all have this muddle with street prices, unbuyable items in the ge etc? Because if the ge upated every second, 24/7, it would be easily manipulated. The problem is that any price manipulation prevents a ge update to update prices more often. And that's an update that would really be needed. second article: 100% agree ;) I'm on my way to a questcape atm, and if there weren't quests in runescape, there probably wouldn't be anything to hold me(except maybe penguins) third article: Generally I liked it but...I don't know, I don't like the idea of arrav being brought from the future. It just doesn't suit me. sorry ;)

I want to know who is thinking this. I haven't seen any posts arguing counter to this. I'm not asking you to defend your point, I'm asking you to source it. Lets reduce this scenario to a very specific example. There are two players and 10 GP in a fictitious runescape economy. There is also one iron scimitar. That's it. Very simple. I kill a player in PVP, and get 5 GP and an iron scimitar as a drop. Now there are 15 GP in my fictitious runescape economy, and there are two iron scimitars. Deflation occurred, even though GP entered the game. Yes, I know runescape's economy is not that simple, but my point is very clear. From PVP, I received many more items worth something than I received GP. I include alchable items in the GP category. The other point I tried to make last time was that PVP inflation would solve itself. This is conceptually a little more difficult to grasp, but I don't feel like explaining it again. So you mine ten coal, and you want an uncut emerald. You cannot find someone to trade you ten coal for an uncut emerald, so you go to the GE. You trade your 10 coal for gp, then buy an uncut emerald on the GE. Why does it matter to you if the GP was 1500 or 3000? 1.It's clearly explained in his article - it's based off the common trade index of rswiki. 2.Well, I'm not engaged in PVP and I cannot tell myself - but do you really get more value off normal items than off statuettes :huh: 3.the problem is that not all items sell instantly. You cannot expect to be able to sell all your flax immediately to buy that barrows armour. Therefore, people are collecting at least partly gp, not items.

You say "automatically assume" - but the author doesn't. You first posted how not everyone likes quests, and when the question of Quest capes arises, you dodge again. You complain about the assumptions made, yet you don't want to comment on the indications for these assumptions. Also, nowhere in the article does the author state every one hates mini-games. He's just concerned that Jagex might push worse on us on the future - like the games room. And now don't tell me the games room isn't a prime example for unused, unliked mini games. Heck, you can go on the OFFICAL world and not meet a single person there! Storm is giving examples on how partly unliked content is pushed on players and how he fears it might get worse. I do not agree with him overall, and some points are too exaggerated in my opinion, but don't interpret something into the article the author cleary didn't want to say.

You did not misunderstand him. But, popularity means it is liked and played by a greater deal of players, and tbh, after the initial crazy that comes with every update, no matter how bad, has died down, I don't see a lot of people playing conquest left. So, it is kind of unpopular, while of course not as bad as the games room ;)

I do actually think the article is rather making assumptions about why Jagex are using minigames as quest requirements. I quite like minigames as quest requirements and diary requirements, they don't generally increase my chances of playing the minigame afterwards, but it's nice to get the excuse to play minigames again that I'd only played once on release and then not got round to it again. So it's entirely possible that Jagex are largely just trying to give us some nice variety in our questing gameplay rather than a particular campaign to create more players for particular minigames. (especially seeing as the two minigames we're largely talking about aren't particular popularity sufferers) I also think he needs to be a little bit careful about generalised statements about what the community thinks. For example "These force-fed elements of the game give an objective player reflux, as our intelligence is insulted with these poorly fabricated ploys to drive activity in underused areas of the game." Does this mean that I'm not an objective player because I didn't share his feelings of reflux at having to play one game of soul wars? Opinion pieces are fine, I like seeing different points of view, but the writer needs to make sure that they are presenting things as their opinion rather than everyones, or they will get a slew of people saying the article is bad. Wait...the author tried to present it as everyones opinion? Where? Your quote was the only one that goes slightly into the direction of that. And tbh, he's kind of right. If you can't see it as a simple ploy to present the minigame, something is wrong. The only difference is if you care or not, where the author cared and others did not. Also, going through the tutorial would've been more than enough for Nomad's requiem. As said, the storyline is pretty shallow anyway. "You wonder what the Soul Obelisk is for? I'M charging teh powa!" Battle. Quest finished. Oh well, I forgot the incredibly difficult riddles which were completely suited for a grandmaster quest. I think it's good to have a challenging boss(I haven't yet killed him), but not at the expenses of Storyline and riddles, especially if its a GMQ. And I liked the first article, it's just that I do not agree with it. Just one thing "Many can argue that perhaps the least popular activities catered towards the masses are minigames. Some are hugely popular and see enormous buy in from players, such as Stealing Creation at its advent, or the original roll-out of Pest Control." I don't really get what is being said here. May be because English is not my native tongue, but to me this doesn't make sense. Can anybody explain?

First of all, I like how the first article clearly states an opinion instead of something half-this, half-that. I was shocked to see how the discussion went last week, and I hope that we won't see something like it again. I am NOT implying that it's Racheyas fault, but it was a prerequisite to start it. that said, I must say that I disagree with the first article. sir squab practically said all. second article: totally. it's just plain annoying. I thought about changing my name once, but you know - friends know my by this name, and given how I dislike it when others change their names, I didn't do it either. It may be a good way for ppl to get rid of emberassing old account names, but it stops when you can change once a month. Once a year or even more would be enough. Fictional: I like it! It seems like you really got a nice story starting there and I'm definitely waiting for next week =)

wow, I must say this IS getting out of hand here. While I still don't like the style of Racheya's Article and agree with most of the basic points of the critics, there is really no need for such an almost full-scale war (everything allowed that's not against the forum rules). I won't further discuss the article or the discussion about the article, imo, enough has been said, I hope Racheya can see through the insults and get some advice for future articles and I also hope I won't see another discussion that goes like this.... Just one thing I have to say: I think it was Stonewall and someone else, don't blame me if I'm wrong, I'm not going back all the pages. They complained about how they couldn't show their skills as they weren't accepted to the editorial staff and didn't even get a response. I don't know if you tried it yourself, but I have written a guest article. It got released very soon, the staff even regarded my request to put it up as soon as possible due to a certain deadline regarding the article. Tbh, I find it no great wonder you don't get accepted without a guest article written and also regarding on how some of you have behaved and behave in these discussion threads(Again, I'm sorry if I'm mixing people up, but I'm relatively sure I don't) Just write a guest article or two, it's fun, and I'm sure it will get published if it's a decent one. for myself, after two failed attempts where Jagex ruined my almost finished second article, I've gotten to writing a fictional ;) Not sure how it turns out though^^

But you can never write your own opinion and then behave like it's the opinion of others too without any evidence to back it up. Stonewall did pull a lot of quotes out of context, and where the idea of the editorial panel being a group which doesn't listen to anyone come from, I don't know. Still, there were three mistakes in racheya's article which me and others have pointed out. 1.Being efficient does not mean being high-leveled, elitist or caring only about achievement, not about fun 2.In one point of the article, it is worded as efficient players would be rude quite often, or at least more often than average. Racheya adds that she doesn't mean that, but in fact, the harm is already done, and secondly, if she really didn't mean it, a whole paragraph of the article is pointless. 3.While it of course becomes clear that it's Racheyas personal opinion, this opinion is not marked as such but rather as certain statements that are widly agreed with. Imo, most of these mistakes simply derive from flawed writing, so I'd like to point it out that she does have some kind of constructive criticism and maybe she won't do the same mistake in the future, hopefully. And that's just one last point, where I have to disagree with Stormrage: There is no need to "do better". These are mistakes we as readers can point out. If we make these mistakes ourselves doesn't matter as long as the discussion stays objective and does not get personal.

I see there is a discussiong starting here, and I must say it's very similar to another there was about an Article by Racheya. I can't find it atm, but it also started out with a discussion on a thread in the Tip.it forums, with an article by Racheye which many felt was an answer to the thread and bashing of their opinions. Unlike the last time though, I tend to stick to those arguing against the point of the article. First of all, I don't see how being efficient or caring about efficiency has anything to do with having less fun. What Racheya is talking about is people caring about levels, ranks and achievements. That may be related to efficiency but is not the core of it. Face it, you have to grind at some parts in Runescape if you want to access certain content. I don't see how minimizing this time is reducing your fun, that's just utterly pointless. Also, the last Paragraphs really do imply that it's a relatively common standard for efficiency "freaks" to look down upon others, and although I'd only partly count myself into that group, I do find it insulting. If it was not intended you have to watch out more in your writing. If we take the name calling away from the article and distract efficiency from caring about ranks and achievements - we're back at the old article about fun in runescape which was written, what, about 6 times now? The fictional was enjoyable, I'm looking forward to more =)

Interesting DYK :P I was always so annoyed when I forgot to put supercompost on the patches :oops: Regarding the first article: Overall, I agree with you. However there are some points I'd like to address: You mentioned buyable Skills. There is a reason these skills require such an enourmus sum of money: They offer huge advantages in combat. If we're talking about Woodcutting, Smithing, Mining or whatever, I couldn't care less. The amount of time saved is rather minimal and certainly doesn't "devalue" anything, especially since people should know for themselves what they did to achieve those levels and what they can be proud of. If they're getting angry because someone calls your skillcape a BXPW product or whatever, that's their own problem. But those buyables offer an advantage in combat and that's the reason why they cost so much to level. This shouldn't be messed with by giving people cheaper overloads, turmoil or steel titans. Also your point of how it's hard to get these levels for quests...not really. I spent less than a million on buyables, and I still have the required levels after not so much playtime on members worlds. Penguin Points alone offer a huge boosts, you can also spend a lot of the xp lamps from quests on them, and the little bit of money someone needs to get that last bit is really not over-the-top. Personally, I did not really like the BXPW. Yes, I abused it, checked my trees, went to the circus, trained some Crafting and woodcutting. But the whole time I felt like what I was doing was wrong, that I did not deserve the levels I gained. I simply did not feel comfortable. When my multiplier was at 1.6 I finally gave up and helped in a penguin clan chat. I do not blame anyone for not thinking the same, but for myself, I just feel(with no particular reason I can word in a sensible argument) that this is wrong. On the second article, I couldn't agree more. I had around 70 people on my friends list, but when I decided to clean up after a few months I was left with a mere 15. It almost completely destroys the chance to randomly find a mate while skilling or monster hunting. Yes, if you chat a lot you will get used to the name change, but anything like the people you only occasionally chat with, or maybe with whom you team up for dungeoneering once in a while - you lose them. I understand some want to get rid of old and maybe even embarassing names, but anything beyond that is just plain annoying. Imo, there should be 1 name change per 2 years available, with the ability to change back to your old name for 1 month. That's completely sufficient.

Hey, it's not my fault I'm an idiot and don't know everything. :razz: I'm not saying your an idiot just because you didn't know a minor fact :P It's just that I didn't expect it and that's why I was critisizing the DYK :mellow:

^I didn't expect to read that here. Okay, forget my critique about this week's DYK

Good articles, however there were two things which concerned me. First, the DYK. What's next , "Did you know useful tools could be useful"? I'm sorry, I know you're running low on DYKs, and no, I haven't submitted one as I haven't found anything fitting yet, at least not conciously. However, I'd rather have no DYK than reading obvious stuff and being disappointed every week. Second, in the Article on Jagex's update behaviour, the author said: "Consider Dungeoneering; a skill which served largely as a hobby for a few months before the rollout of items such as chaotic weapons and rewards such as frost dragons (with their delightfully rewarding skeletons). Like Summoning, the skill itself was not useful in the core game until the second sweeping batch of updates came into play. " I don't know what game you've been playing, but in MY Runescape, chaotic equipment has been there before batch 2, and the price was very soon lowered. Batch 2 did definitely not change Dungeoneering from a hobby to a reward-driven skill. It increased the gaming experience while dungeoneering, and it gave some nice new rewards, yes but it didn't really shift any balance. I think there's a huge difference to Summoning Batch 2, and Dungeoneering was DEFINITELY useful before Batch 2. and also, as "batch 2" was divided into several updates, you can't kally it a "sweeping batch" either, that's just plain overstatement.

He didn't say anything about pre-runefest events to me. I see only one possibility to read his comment and that is that to what he heard, about 50 people attended Runefest. Obviously, if you had only one look at a video, you could see that's not true. So I'm interested in how the DG Elite forum came up with that number... Also, I just had a look at the vinopolis and olympia conference centre, and while I do not know which party Jagex booked, Vinopolis looks a lot bigger to me. I don't think any "scaling down" was happening here.

Well, discussing about beliefs/opinions is useless if you can't really argue because you don't have reliable sources of information. Both could be true, I have seen indicators for both, and wether you believe one or the other version is just up to you. I can see too how people can be offended, but as that wasn't what MMG intended to say, I wouldn't be so enraged about it. All he did is failing at using good wording, so there's no reason to fell insulted about his lack of talent there, is there ;)? the lottery: Indeed, a lottery is self-explanatory, I just asked because I couldn't see how this would change anything. And I still can't, sorry. Regarding the Flaggstaff - yes it wasn't the wisest thing to do. However, I feel it would be even more stupid to change the policy now. They shouldn't have handled it like that, but I think giving in now would be even worse.

And I took issue to both of those because some people DO have legitimate counterpoints to those, to tell them to just 'shut the hell up', is childish and immature at best. ---------------------- He pretty much said that if you don't agree with any or all of those 4 points you paraphrased earlier, then one should 'shut the hell up' if they happen to opine differently on those 4 points. So that is precisely what he did. Part 1: I wouldn't say it's so unlikely. If the scenario was right, I'd have no doubts that MMG would lie about it, but it also could be true. Also, as I just read in your beloved Runescoop Thread, Olympia Conference centre is actually SMALLER than vinopolis, so it doesn't seem they had to "scale down in a hurry" WE DON'T KNOW if it's true. I don't know, and you don't know either. Can we keep it at that? It's useless discussing about beliefs. Part 2: MMG's wording wasn't the best, to be true, but still I think you're just getting him wrong. Of course it would be great if they could cover travel costs too, but that would cost a lot more, and is it so strange they don't want to spend too much money. The main problem you have is that he seems to imply that those who didn't go aren't loyal players. But he didn't say that. What he DID say is that those who are at Runefest are loyal players. It's not exclusive though. It doesn't mean they're the only loyal players, duh. He did NOT say you weren't loyal if you didn't come. Get that in your head. He didn't say it. Part 3:I don't see how a lottery would have the desired effect? Could you go more in-depth about it instead of us having to search Runescoop until we finally find the post you are referring to? Part 4:I haven't really seen sensible arguments(apart from the one that just not everyone can spare the money) Also, if they can argue sensibly it's OK. I'M sure he's just tired of all the whiners. Part 5:Almost the same as above. I haven't seen anyone really giving good arguments, so it's getting old. Just accept it.

Here is something someone else posted elsewhere that is a pretty astute commentary on this subject, in my opinion: So, while I am glad you enjoyed the event and from the looks of it it was probably a nice little get together, lets try to be a little critical shall we, instead of just expending the benefit of the doubt upon Jagex recklessly(though, on Tip.it that has been long established as the norm by this point.) And here we were all thinking they were gauging the interest in the event(which would be a sensible approach) before booking a venue but it appears they were a step ahead. :rolleyes: :^o Here, by the way, is a P-Moderator who is typically quite on the 'Pro-Jagex side', his take on the matter, to give some perspective: Both of these were extracted from the Runescoop thread on the matter. Anyways, if you bought into the event, great, but don't tell the rest of us to "shut the hell up" because we happen to opine differently or because we happen to think about it critically rather than drooling over the event like a preppy little school girl. Aside from that, not a bad article about the event by any stretch of the imagination, quite a good recap. First of all, of course MMG may have lied, but he may also have said the truth. Who knows? I wouldn't trust some "hidden page", why would they put the info there? A long time there was also an adress of some area in london(I don't exactly know how the english system works here) and it turned out to be a ticket selling station of ticketmaster. Also, on the Pmods post, that guy is an idiot. MMG was talking about the ticket price and about that only. It's not their fault someone lives far away and they can't do anything bout it. Considering its their first event, they sure as hell won't scale some in different locations simultaneously. MMG sure as hell didn't expect anyone to pay for the ticket instead of mortgages, college or bills. If you do that, you're an idiot. He means that you are willing to spend 75 pounds on this convention instead of buying two new computer games. Of course the method is controversial, but, although "dividing wheat from chaff" sounds too elitist too me, its basically true. If the convention was free from start on, they would have loads of idiots who basically don't care about the game, but oh well, might as well go. If you ask for the money, you will get two groups of people: 1.those who moderately care about runescape and just have a lot of money(a rather small group) 2.and those with an average income, dedicated to this game(but not addicted...those will rather stay in their cellars and just continue to play runescape) Of course its a bit unfair on those who have rather few money, but as said, you have to get immature idiots out of it somehow. I'm sure Jagex will love it if you come up with a better solution one that does not exclude anyone based on their richness. also, on the rant bit...yes it was a bit over the top, but he doesn't direct "shut the hell up" to those who think differently, he directs it to: 1.those saying everyone going to runefest are nerds(in a negative way, meaning they have no social skills, live in their basement playing runescape 24/7 etc.) - which is not true 2.those complaining that they would've gone to runefest too if they knew that it was free - for not being really dedicated to the game, although once again this is a bit unfair to those with few money 3.those demanding for a flaggstaff 4.and the ridiculous complain about food and drinks costing. I don't see him bashing those who have another opinion, but simply the idiots who have to feel important, want stuff they don't deserve and are so narrow-minded to believe everyone going there has no real life.

yeah sure.... what if player 3 actually meant the cut rubis player 8 sells? He gets locked up for no reason? What if one, only one slayer mod, is pissed on one, just one day and vents his anger on helpless other players? I'll tell you, player numbers would decrease dramatically, either out of protest or out of fear(of your money being wasted) apart from that your idea isn't even right. You base the whole thing off the assumption that nobody will break rules anymore in awe of slayer mods. But: If you choose only the best ones here(and you musn't choose any others, it's enough risk already) than you never have enough mods to watch everybody, and some of the offences(like botting) need more than one glance. This means a lot of players will get through with rule-breaking still, and therefore will continue with it.

On the point of slayer mods...that has to be the worst Idea ever. As said, someone can be the nicest, modest, friendliest, most helpful, whatever person. You can not predict how they are going to be corrupted by power. And the worst of it: If one, only one of these "slayer mods" abuses his powers, the confidence into player mods will be gone for most players, down to zero, effictively killing the whole system. Heck, probably there will be players who run away in fear of the mod killing them, even if they have done nothing wrong. And that probably will even be a wise decision...