Sly_Wizard

And errr, yeah. Don't know how this double posted.

Pretty sure I'm not. I just find it funny the lengths people have to go to to justify their crashing (I seriously lol inside every time someone mentions efficiency and fun). At any rate, I like your analogy. If someone is taking too long at the vending machine, push them out of the way. Yeah, that makes sense. So you really don't understand the difference between telling someone what they have to do (i.e., give someone |=|233 57()()|=5) and what they can't do to another (impede on their gameplay)? Mmmkay. Makes me wonder where all the logical people went.

Sounds to me like you're still trying to feed it, quoting its posts and all. *pats on head* You're so cute when you try. But try harder, okay? ;)

Oh, joy. And how is that? Repeating something a million times doesn't make it any less wrong then it was the millionth time then the first time. Except it's not, which is why you've yet to refute it or even try to refute it. And in the same vein, scamming is both efficient (Seriously. Why spend a year trying to save up for a party hat when you can scam someone and get one in a day?) and fun for some people. So following your logic, you should have nothing against scamming if someone wants to rationalize it this way. Yet you do, which leads us back to square one in which you erroneously believe that scamming is wrong because it's a zero-sum game, instead of scamming being wrong because it negatively impedes upon the gameplay of another player without that player agreeing, either implicitly or explicitly, to be impeded upon. *facepalm* Me: You crash people regardless of the effect it has on the person you crash. You: Not true! We crash people regardless of how it affects someone else! Yet again I point out the fact that, if for some odd reason, crashing was a zero-sum game, that you would still crash. I know this. You know this. And everyone else who reads this thread knows this. The decision to crash someone has nothing to do with what the other person will lose if you crash, but rather the benefit to yourself you obtain by crashing, which is why 90% of the arguments for crashing boil down to "It's efficient for me to crash!". Jeezuz! That's not hard to understand. Or is it? And it's obviously obvious that you still don't know what you're talking about. Any PvP activity in which the defeated player loses his or her items to the victorious player is, more-or-less, a zero-sum game. Is that wrong? The answer to that question is no, because PvP requires two willing participants who accept the fact that they can attack and kill others for their items or be attacked and be killed for their items. When it comes to scamming someone, there is no such agreement. It's merely one player doing to another without that other player's consent. Hacking is the same. Crashing is the same. The crashed do not asked to be crashed, nor do they agree to it. In fact, the activity that people who are crashed are engaging in has nothing to do with competing against another player, nor are they in a PvP area, but rather competing against a certain monster or NPC (That's why it's called PvM). At the end of the day, crashing is merely one player impeding on the gameplay of another because they can. Which, you know, is the point. Doesn't refute anything I typed out. You might as well have told me how you like chocolate milk as it would have been just about as relevant a response. I know I'm not the only one who has pointed this out, but crashers crash because they can. Everything else is extraneous to this fact. Everything. If you couldn't crash someone, you wouldn't even try to crash. And that's the bottom line. Would you like an e-cookie? I have a mind to call you a noob and point out how I've got yada yada yada... But that would make me elitist.

And? That would make one worse the other, how? The answer is that it wouldn't, especially not within the confines that people here are trying to justify crashing (efficiency and fun), and especially not when you consider how the people crashing are justifying their actions regardless of the effects it has on another (it seems rather dishonest to only begin considering the effects that one action has on another when you're talking about scamming, but not crashing, as if crashing has no effect on anyone). In scamming, for every 1 GP one person gains, the other loses 1 GP. This is called a zero sum game because the gains = losses. When a 138 crashes a 110, the gains made by the 138 and the rest of the RS economy far exceed the losses of the 110. I know what a zero-sum game is, and it has absolutely no bearing on anything. It doesn't matter, because the people who crash don't not do it because it negatively affects another. They do it, regardless of the effect it has on another, because they can. I guarantee you that if crashing were a zero-sum game, that people would still crash. At any rate, should I be surprised how you didn't, and probably won't, address the central point of my post? Amazing how once the whole "rationalizing-away-an-action-based-on-efficiency/fun" angle gets challenged, it gets ignored, and irrelevant points get brought up instead. ...But the above is all moot anyway. It's a game, nobody cares about ethics :rolleyes:

And? That would make one worse the other, how? The answer is that it wouldn't, especially not within the confines that people here are trying to justify crashing (efficiency and fun), and especially not when you consider how the people crashing are justifying their actions regardless of the effect it has on another (it seems rather dishonest to only begin considering the effects that one action has on another when you're talking about scamming, but not crashing, as if crashing has no effect on anyone).

Likewise, not crashing someone only benefits the person I didn't crash, at my own cost. Why is efficiency a bad standard? I am happier finding joy in efficiency rather than joy out of laziness. Because some of the actions justified by saying "its more efficient" are just flat out rude, and some more extreme examples might be considered flat out unethical. I'm sure it would be more profitable for you to crash, but if you feel that that you have to steal someone elses kill that they were already working on than most people are just going to feel that that's being unneccesarily greedy and is at the height of greediness. You really couldn't have just let someone finish their kill before taking the world? To be honest that just reflects upon how completely self centered you are if you can't settle for anything less than MAXIMUM efficiency and have to resort to taking away other people's enjoyment. Are you really losing that much by waiting a minute to let someone finish their kill and not waste their food+pots spent on taking out 1/3 of its hp? I mean you are already probably going to get every other kill on that world. It's a game, nobody cares about ethics. Efficiency + Fun = Good. Crashing is efficient, and fun. Except when it comes to scamming. Then that rationale seems to go right out the proverbial window. :rolleyes: Of course, you'll inevitably say, "But, Sly! Scamming is against the rules!", to which I reply "So what?". Imagine, if you will, that there was absolutely no rules against scamming in game. None what-so-ever. Now let's assume that someone decides to start a thread about why they scam others, how it's much more efficient to scam others than it is to take weeks, months or maybe even years trying to acquire an item through normal means and how they consider it fun. I can guarantee you with absolute certainty that the people using the whole "No one cares about ethics in a game... Efficiency/fun... Blah blah blah" lines would suddenly be singing a totally different tune, and they would more-or-less base their argument as to why the person who started the thread was in the wrong on the basis that his actions have a negative effect on the game play of others (*hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge*).

I didn't think Karil's top would ever reach 6M'ish. When I think about the number of them I've lost over the years, it makes me sad inside.

Some of the people in this thread remind me of the guy in Make Love, Not Warcraft who kills people solely because he can.

lol @ this guy So basically you don't assist others because you're upset at the prospect of them getting "free" experience? Hah!

What's up with people thinking Celtic Knot puzzles are hard/not liking them? Personally, after I got my first knot puzzle, I was hooked. It was fun, it was easy, and I wanted MORE. Now on my second elite clue I had 4 celtic knots and it was a great time. The whole clue took me 34 minutes and I came out with Armadyl Chaps and a Penguin Staff. :thumbsup: I had an elite with 4 celtic knot puzzles and I got, iirc, some biscuits, some tuna potatoes and a dragon dagger.

Can't say I did. Anyway, clicking on this thread constantly reminds me as to why the Runescape community gets such a bad wrap.

So . . . you're a leecher. You know, I have an urge to mention something about it not being personal... Anyway, rushing is really stupid, and I hope Jagex goes back one day and either makes it impossible to rush by making every room a GD, if it's not a skill door, or making it so that the bonus for killing monsters in a dungeon is bigger. But that's probably asking too much.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least a bit happy about that. Depending on how far they fall, it might give me a bit of incentive to train herblore.

I'm not going to lie. I really can't complain about some of the new teleport rewards and the biscuits.Oh, and the God Bows. And that prayer armor.

If you're maging something and don't need to worry about healing damage via SS, or you don't have SS, the top and bottom would be excellent to use in conjunction with augury.

The green circles when doing Celtic Knot puzzles make the darn thing far easier then I think Jagex intended.

No. I point out the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, because if you would have been around for as long as I have then you would know that most of the things you say are simply untrue, specifically the part about false premises when I stated that boss monsters weren't intended to be solo'ed. In RSC, there was no multi-combat. In RSC, the KBD had no multi-target attacks. Multi-combat was created when RS2 came out. For someone who has been playing "off-and-on" since 2002, you really should know this. Incorrect. They can be easily solo'ed now because there have been numerous updates making it easier to solo (i.e., summoning, extremes/overloads, better weapons, etc.). Unless you want to play a game which doesn't update at all, it's inevitable that as more material is released, existing monsters become easier and easier to kill solo. That doesn't mean that said monsters were designed to be solo'ed, though. That's where you're committing a fallacy. Notice I didn't say anything about the Sara room specifically. I said God Wars. When God Wars first came out, the rooms were configured in a way in which, upon entering the boss' chamber, you could stand in the door frame, and by doing so you generally would only be attacked by the main boss monster. This made killing, say, Kree a breeze-- especially for solo players. Jagex went and fixed that specifically because they didn't want people to be able to solo. No, it's not, unless you're going to create instanced bosses, which so many people seem to be against because it would devalue the drops that the crashers crash for (I guess the irony is lost upon some of them). If Jagex wanted to make the Corp Beast unsoloable, or at least make it exponentially harder to do so, they would have added a stomp attack or something. ...Oh wait. That, quite frankly, is terrible logic. I didn't know that killing a monster in a team was predicated on LS/CS being activated. I've realized that some people have a propensity to only read what they want to read and flatly ignore the rest. Please notice how I said that the only competition that exists between players is because one player makes it his or her duty to compete against another player, not because Jagex has made the two compete against each other or even because both parties want to compete against each other. Not that I haven't pointed this out to you before, but your argument is basically that because a monster exists in multi-, that Jagex intended players to compete for that monster. This is not only wrong, but it's something you simply cannot prove (because it's untrue). No one said anything about solo-play not being encouraged. What I said, and have said about a bajillion times only to have you ignore it a bajillion more times, is that boss monsters were created to be killed via a team.

Name changing is such a wonderful thing. Of course, if you feel compared to look me up, then go type in Gosei Sly. At any rate, I guess I will go not play Runescape now and try to become more knowledgeable on the game.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I've been playing Runescape longer then you, and that you didn't start playing Runescape before 2005. For if you had, you would have known that Jagex revamped the KBD's lair, like, three or four times and changed the way his breath attacks worked in order to get people to stop solo'ing it. You would also know that when the KQ came out, it only had a magic and melee attack, and that after people figured out how to range solo the entire thing the whole way through, Jagex totally nerfed the rune throwing axe special and added a range attack to make it exponentially more difficult for people to solo. There were a few changes to the DK's lair, but that was mainly to get people to stop safe spotting Rex, and a few changes to GWD's in which also made it a bit more difficult to people to solo by hiding in the door frames. As it stands, no, boss monsters really weren't made to be solo'ed. History attests to this fact. I actually wish I still had the links to the updates Jagex gave us regarding the new game engine in the RSC -> RS2 conversion when they explained multi-combat areas. I'm really astonished that: 1.) The concept of decency is lost upon some people. And 2.) You would think that Jagex would put boss-monster in multi-combat if it was meant to be solo'ed, and are content to ignore changes that Jagex has made to make it harder to solo boss monsters. You haven't made any point. Like... At all. But it's nice that you think you have. Plus, I'm as happy as I always am. No. Just explaining your reasoning behind your original statement. But seeing how absurd of a statement it was, you can't. That's 50M more then you're willing to risk. See how that works? Of course you won't, even though it's there. That's kind of the point. You do what conveniences you to do. I'm pretty sure I said that pages and pages ago.

Which is why people sold the drops and split amongst their teammates pre-trading limits, and why there's CS/LS post-trading limits. 1.) Summoning wasn't out when God Wars was released. 2.) I'm fairly sure Jagex could have just made the minions act like death spawns if they wanted to. Following your logic, the KQ is in multi-combat only so it's minions could attack you. Of course, a few changes later, including nerfing the rune throwing axe special and adding a new range attack, kind of rendered that assertion wrong.

You enter a race knowing that only one person can win. It's an implicit assumption attached to the activity. People seem to be under some kind of illusion that boss monsters are in multi-combat because they were designed in order for people to prove how much better they are then someone. They weren't. They're that way because they were designed to be team activities, which is why-- once upon a time, at least-- Jagex was insistent on making sure that said NPC's couldn't be solo'ed.

The fact that you have to ask in kind of funny. You get hired under the assumption that you can perform to a certain level. There is no such assumption in Runescape. When it comes to MH, the only assumptions are that you need to be better then the monster you're attacking; not better then someone else who also wants to attack that monster. Because you're pushing the kid off the proverbial swing because you think you're more deserving of it then he is. I say this as nicely as possible, but lol. Come on, now. Which player are you going to try to crash on account of them being inefficient? Player A who kills 20 TD's an hour and spends 100K doing it, or Player B who kills 100 TD's an hour but spends 5M doing it? Unless you're some kind of masochist, you're going to say Player A, even though he spends less killing TD's then does Player B (500 coins per demon killed vs. 50K per demon killed). And why are you going to crash Player A versus Player B? Because Player A kills them five times as slow as Player B, which means you have a much better chance of crashing Player A then Player B. That's the point. Efficiency has to do with kills per hour. Nothing else matters when it comes to trying to crash someone. Nothing. It doesn't matter how much money someone is wasting. If they're getting more kills per hour then you can, you're not going to try to crash them. No. In an online game, the only thing that matters is time. That's why people use overloads and a cannon for slayer, even though it costs more to do so. That's why people altar dragon bones instead of big bones, even though it costs more exponentially to do so then altaring big bones or even baby dragon bones. That's why people burn yews or magics when training firemaking rather then willows and maples, assuming they can afford to do so. And so on and so forth. It's an MMO. So what? I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Is the relationship between players adversarial? The fact that you have to ask in kind of funny. You get hired under the assumption that you can perform to a certain level. There is no such assumption in Runescape. When it comes to MH, the only assumptions are that you need to be better then the monster you're attacking; not better then someone else who also wants to attack that monster. Because you're pushing the kid off the proverbial swing because you think you're more deserving of it then he is. I say this as nicely as possible, but lol. Come on, now. Which player are you going to try to crash on account of them being inefficient? Player A who kills 20 TD's an hour and spends 100K doing it, or Player B who kills 100 TD's an hour but spends 5M doing it? Unless you're some kind of masochist, you're going to say Player A, even though he spends less killing TD's then does Player B (500 coins per demon killed vs. 50K per demon killed). And why are you going to crash Player A versus Player B? Because Player A kills them five times as slow as Player B, which means you have a much better chance of crashing Player A then Player B. That's the point. Efficiency has to do with kills per hour. Nothing else matters when it comes to trying to crash someone. Nothing. It doesn't matter how much money someone is wasting. If they're getting more kills per hour then you can, you're not going to try to crash them. No. In an online game, the only thing that matters is time. That's why people use overloads and a cannon for slayer, even though it costs more to do so. That's why people altar dragon bones instead of big bones, even though it costs more exponentially to do so then altaring big bones or even baby dragon bones. That's why people burn yews or magics when training firemaking rather then willows and maples, assuming they can afford to do so. And so on and so forth. It's an MMO. So what? I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Is the relationship between players adversarial? I know what efficiency is, and is Runescape efficiency relates to time. There's a reason people consider it efficient to train slayer with a cannon then without, even though it costs a hell of a lot more to train slayer via the use of a cannon then without. As I stated in my post, such a relationship only exists because one party decides that they want to impede on another. Most boss monsters are in multi-combat because they were designed to be killed with a team-- not so two people could compete to see who is the better player.

I said nothing about maliciousness. If Kid B pushes Kid A off of the swing because he wants Kid A's swing, then following your logic that's perfectly acceptable, as long as Kid B didn't do it to be malicious. Yes, it really does matter. Did you not read the OP? If the noobs made their way to the PvP worlds and a crasher showed up, then they'd experience the same problem-- plus the added problem of the crasher maybe deciding to attack the noob, on account of the crasher being bigger and badder. Ergo, it's much simpler for the big bad crasher to go to a PvP world where he won't have to worry about being crashed nor anyone PK'ing him because they're bigger and badder. *points above* Honestly. What is up with all these people thinking they're so great 'cuz they're maxed? I don't go around proclaiming how I have a right to be a [cabbage] in-game 'cuz I've got 34M magic experience, or nearly 50M range experience. Kill speed is everything. When someone says that someone else is being inefficient, it means that they're not obtaining the max number of kills per hour, not that they're not doing something in the most cost-effective way. That's the entire reason why people crash someone else-- because the crasher can kill faster then the crashed. Dying only affects efficiency if you lose items faster then you can replace them, because then you would be relegated to worse armor/weapons, which means fewer kills per hour, or you would have to spend hours reacquiring those items you lost, when you could have spent those hours MH instead, which also reduces your efficiency. That's exactly the same thing I said before. Is the relationship between players in Runescape adversarial? Not unless you're PK'ing (and mining to a lesser extent, but Jagex somewhat alleviated that issue by adding ore veins). Otherwise, any kind of adversarial relationship is caused by one party deciding that they want to impede upon another party, not because two parties have entered an activity under the assumption that they'll be competing against each other. Also, instanced rooms would cause the price of an item to fall, regardless of whether or not more items actually enter the game that way, solely because perception will be that more items enter the game with instanced rooms then without.

Slightly off-topic, but how should they have run their business?