TheAncient

certain people on these forums say things which don't even merit argument. there's really no point in arguing with them or proving your point because they don't even appeal to logic; all they do is throw names at you. these kinds of people are few and far between, thankfully, as they provide barely anything productive to the board. for a post or thought which one actually respects, i agree with you.

so l2dg failed, which is my fault. i don't have the time for its upkeep - if anyone else does, talk to me so i can see where you might want to take the cc, and i can give it to you. i had an idea: What if TIF made a separate DG only subforum? there's so much content to discuss wrt DG that it warrants its own forum to have comprehensive discussion. it would basically function as general disc, help&advice, AoW, as well as clan recruitment in one board. tipiters can organize perm teams there as well. what do the mods think about this?

Agreed. However, just because someone disagrees with another person doesn't mean they are flaming them. They can disagree completely and think the other person's point is completely off base, even completely discrediting their point of view, and that is fine. It becomes flaming when you bring the person into the argument. For a lot of posters here, just debating/arguing is not enough. They need to make their counterpoint, and then add a personal insult. Even if it's something small, like adding "children" and a sarcastic smiley at the end of a sentence, it's unnecessary and ultimately incites more personal attacks. Thankfully it's not too much of a problem here (but of course at the rate the people describe the community is declining, one would have to extrapolate a few years down the line this place will be worse than 4chan /s). people have always been saying the community has been declining... i don't think it is, it's just changing. people are used to a certain set of behaviors and when they see that disappear they think the new changes are all negative. i think it's fair to say tif used to be a lot more community oriented and now it's more high-level gameplay oriented. this is not inherently a bad change. when i use the term "flaming" i just use it as a blanket term to mean heated argument. personal insults are a different story. but how do you differentiate between someone who you actually think is stupid and someone who you're annoyed at and want to throw names at? the difference is hard to tell.

one observation about all this flaming is that people - especially me - respond in very predictable ways to specific triggers or key ideas that go against their worldview. this is why people are so riled up. moreover, our triggers overlap and form a positive feedback loop. for example, i flame when i see someone saying something either completely stupid or something along the lines of "let's be nice and not know the reasons behind it", i feel the need to correct them. im doing so, they think "oh wow this guy is being a jerk". every response after that initial interaction is repeating back to the same points that stem from obviously different worldviews. is this a problem? i still think it really isn't one unless you make it. i think a lot of these flame-y posts (an elitists view on crashing etc) have generated a lot of useful introspection. granted, those posts have also made people choose sides - "elitist", "ignorant", or whatever - but in doing so i think we've also gotten to know a lot of each other better and are familiar with each others' perspectives and posting styles. it's good that we know who shares similar ideas as us so we know who we can consult.

To that I respond "george bush, bill oreilly, glenn beck, sarah palin" Also, the guy wasn't being serious lol. look at his username Because someone's username is not the serious of names, I shouldn't consider what he says serious? The odds could be against me but you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. Sarah Palin and George Bush are you saying they didn't work hard to have gotten to where they are in live? You realize in becoming president George Bush had to win over the public's appeal? You may disagree with their politics (and so do I) but arrogance and rudeness did not get them to where they are in life. I choice not to watch those dumb news shows with Bill I'Reilly and Glenn Beck so I can't really comment so much besides be hard ass political commentaries is a rare career field in which being a douchebag is rewarded but you have a better chance at becoming a professional baseball player then obtaining their jobs. given the nature of that post i'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. what about the people who hired oreilly and beck? fox news and its owners KNOWINGLY deceive ignorant members of our society (people involved w fox news have been quoted for things like this) for its own profit. yet their viewers actually love fox news, because they think that fox is helping out the Real America. palin is well known mainly because of her trolling, and bush may have appeared to care for the american public but his policies - especially iraq - do not reflect that he cares. either that or he is just extremely ignorant. another example is typical office politics. look at my edited post, i had already kinda addressed this. with respect to other people, the only thing that really matters in success is that you get people to *think* that you're being nice to them. in the case of RS, how other people view you is pretty irrelevant because very rarely will a grudge bite you in the ass. they can't do anything other than hack you or something, and the chance of that is really low. compare this to real life, where being directly mean loses you friends and makes you fail but being discreetly selfish can help you out. friends and family are a totally different matter - your end goal is companionship in those cases, and honest interaction is necessary. i realize this claim is VERY extreme. but based on my observations this is really how the world works. nice guys finish last. anyway, i've kind of gone off in a tangent. with respect to this thread, i reiterate: some of us come here for companionship, while some of us come here for useful information, and most of us are somewhere in between. realize that some of us aren't necessarily here ONLY to be your friend. instead, we want to mutually help each other by sharing the most accurate information possible. and when you are wrong or say something clearly ignorant, we will likely call you out on it.

I guess that's why I mostly safe pvp. You need karils+ to win over a mage.

To that I respond "bill oreilly, glenn beck, sarah palin, fox news". they are well aware of the political machine they run, the fact that they take advantage of an ignorant public which they don't respect, are arrogant/rude. You can't be arrogant/rude to people you directly interact with because then it hurts you pretty immediately. But if you are good at tricking people into thinking that you're helping them, it doesn't matter whether or not you actually are. Sure, you can't be mean to your boss or your coworkers - they'll think youre an ass and not want to work with you. But look at people who own companies, and who are actually in power. A large proportion of them are arrogant and selfish. Also, the guy wasn't being serious lol. look at his username

I see what you did there. LOL. this guy is a real troll hahah

No offence, but you DEFINITELY haven't been in PVP much. Max mage gets owned by rag range, lol. Splish splash... But yeah the downside to 10 spaces is that at about 11 or 12 the enemy gets unfrozen. So you have to be super precise. It's really kind of in between what you guys are saying, I think. max mage sometimes rips even arma, with luck. mage destroys dhide most of the time.

This guy is pretty brilliant at sarcasm lol. But in all seriousness, I actually agree with him, ridiculous as it may sound.

not many people here are /b/tards, nor do many people intentionally troll. people are just eager to call each other trolls because it's a convenient blanket insult to throw when you don't know what else to call someone also, just to be clear, i wasn't actually trolling in that post.it was a joke. the only two people i actually troll are g-troll and blyaunte cause theyre so fun lol.

joking here, but my goal is to troll you in this post. congrats to me? :P anyway OT, i think this is a good topic. i'm hearing a lot of reasonable statements which is actually kind of refreshing.

I don't totally agree with this. My mage bonus is usually around like 120 and I still lose to people in arma.

Generally, if you posted something like "Train slayer [/thread]" on a topic asking for the easiest way to get 99 melees, you would be called an elitist jerk yourself. Just as there are varying degrees of efficiency (and how much you care about it), there are different degrees of how people respond to being told to play a certain way when they are inclined to play a different way. Take a step back, look your post over, and realize that some of the most vocal complainers would lump you in with the "jerks." I'm not saying you are one - I think your post was dead on and I feel much the same way - but that's what the perception is becoming. what jetrider is really saying is that ihaschicken's irl skill is way too high and he's a irl "efficiency clown" :-D note how in this context "efficiency clown" has very little to do with efficiency. just like how it's used on these boards haha

Not to flame, but then is there any reason for the people in the gray area to get involved? It doesn't really affect them. Let the jerks be jerks.

If the ranger has void+deflector and rigour I have a hard time imagining this. The main weakness of range nowadays is that to be maxed (i.e. rigour), you give up soul split.

Yes, and I agree with this. I don't think it's a problem that others see it as a problem, because that's their issue. Why should I care about some random person's opinion? You can call that being selfish or arrogant, but it's the mindset of most of the adult world. At least, in the company setting. Stretching a bit: Overall, people would benefit from thinking holistically for the society, but people do not operate that way. Not that I know much about game theory, but I know that this is pretty much law as far as human nature goes.

I think this opinion is exactly why there's so much divisiveness. Some of us are here primarily for a sense of community. Some of us are here primarily to share information. And then there are just people who are stupid, haha

Mage and Range are not strictly "weaker" than melee, at least in a PVP context. PVM is a different story. When people compare the strengths of melee, mage, and range, they mostly consider the max DPS of each style. If pure DPS is really the measurement of combat style strength, then yes, melee is most powerful. Moreover, melee is traditionally the cheapest and most convenient, as melee does not use any kind of ammunition. However, the main drawback of melee is very infrequently mentioned. This weakness is that melee is melee. It requires you to be within one space of your opponent. Spacing and terrain is a huge and often ignored aspect of combat. Other than having good levels, timing, and reactions, a player really only is "good" at combat if he controls spacing and terrain. If harassed properly, a hybrider who relies on melee will lose a significant amount of time and effort trying to keep up with a mage/range heavy hybrider who maneuvers well. What do I mean by controlling spacing and terrain? First, let me elaborate on terrain. If you run in specific directions around certain terrain items (rocks, walls), you can attack a meleer without him attacking you back. Of course, a meleer won't just stand there while you attack him. If he isn't dumb, he'll try to run around the terrain and attack you. In most cases a meleer can do this fast enough to attack you at least once before you reposition. However, in doing so, you effectively slow down his attack speed. If he is using an item which is faster than yours - a rapier, for example - your overall damage per attack is proportionally larger than if you were not to run around. In addition, because you have more time in between attacks, you can use this time strategically by switching prayers or eating. The advantage of additional preparation time applies to your opponent as well, but most meleers are not quick enough to realize that this time can be used effectively. But what if there is no terrain? This is where magic is extremely powerful. Magic has a range of 10 squares, which is higher than even crossbows on longrange (9 LR/7 Rapid). Not only does this give you the ability to farcast, but it also gives you a very significant buffer of preparation time. The time it takes to run to you from 10 squares away is plenty of time for you to tank up, pot, or whatever. If you manage to keep this space difference, you can basically nullify all melee. This is why mage hybrids and tribrids are superior to melee/range hybrids. If there's plenty of terrain for your meleer to get stuck on, a ranger can also have this advantage provided that the combat arena is large and that he has access to a run energy supply. Mage and range may actually have better DPS than melee in safe pvp. Mage is extremely accurate, for whatever reason. A maxed mage attacking someone in full anti-mage gear is much more accurate than a maxed meleer attacking someone in tank gear. With the addition of damage-boosting staves, arcane stream, and magic potions, overall magic DPS may actually be higher than melee against a properly defended opponent, accounting for accuracy. With rigour, deflector-void, and chaotic crossbow, range's accuracy is probably even comparable to the chaotic maul. Don't get me wrong. Melee is still extremely powerful - the chaotic maul is absolutely devastating. But note that its real power lies mostly with KO's, and not necessarily in actual DPS.

That seems kind of exaggerated to me, but whatever See, judging from this post and from past ones I've seen, you're part of the "problem". I'm not trying to be rude, but when you use words and sayings like the ones I've bolded, where there is no positive outcome from using them, it just lumps you in with the rest of those who don't care about being a positive contributer to society. I'm fine with a little slang here and there, but when you use negative slangs like 'butthurt' it just reflects badly on you. As to my answer to the question: When society is shifting towards a much more 'me' related way of thinking rather then the good of the whole, there is little you can do to keep it out of a game where the target audience is the very generation which is driving this shift in society. I'm ashamed to be part of this generation and do my part to try to teach people that thinking of and respecting others should be your primary focus in life, but it seems that for every nice person you see in my generation, you see 100 more who would much rather get what they want, when they want, and are willing to run over anyone who gets in their way, rather then what's best for them or society as a whole. I AM part of the "problem", and fully admit to it. I am not ashamed of it either. I don't really care because I've realized I don't really think it's a problem. There's no reason I need to get along with certain people other than for sits&giggles. And what I was trying to say is that it's not really a problem unless you make it out to be one. Who cares that we have enemies? What are they going to do? Flame us in every thread? Like they do already? It's kind of fun, actually. Being a positive contributor to society and being a positive contributor to an online board are vastly different. And to your last paragraph, I highly admire your patronizing view on how an entire generation of a society should be shaped and moulded based on your highly limited worldview. It's amusing. Your emotional response to what I have just said will be something along the lines of you being on your moral high horse and calling me selfish and close-minded. To that I respond, okay, cool. We have different values. You think yours are superior, I think mine are. Who cares? This is a very reasonable suggestion. I think it should be considered carefully. ////// If you really want to argue with me formally, here is my opinion laid out without flaming or whatever: The problem with shaping a discussion board by banning and locking posts is that good discussion is almost always organic. Regulation of societal matters very rarely turns out the way that it is intended. Likewise, I think having mods directly ban or lock posts is unreasonable. I'm glad TIF hasn't done so - I'm glad even that they haven't banned the people I'm often flaming. I don't think the mods should take sides, despite their personal leanings. That's also why this discussion is really pretty meaningless. It's very hard for a group as a whole to decide on and then live by a set of rules which are, to be honest, more or less arbitrary. Most societal expectations are understood without having to state them - they develop naturally. With that said, if the mods really are to look to a solution to this "problem" of repeated flaming, I think it should be a structural one rather than one of policy. The suggestion of two separate boards - high level discussion versus general game discussion - may be explicitly divisive, but may overall eliminate many of these quarrels.

cant we just not do anything about it? i'm fine with the flaming going on. it's even a little entertaining. i don't want to be butthurt when there's no need to be. chill out brah

refreshing post and perspective i would have you do nothing. things are fine the way they are. dont ban people. thats silly

About time. Buyable divine? No I think it still has some street, not sure

heard ely is at min ge

no, there are people who are just plain stupid - like, illogical. they don't realize what they say makes very little sense. i am often wrong about the "best way" of doing things. but rarely do i say anything that makes no sense at all. there is nothing wrong with playing a game for fun. it's fine if you want to do things your way. but when you start claiming that your way is more optimal than mine at achieving X, at least provide some kind of coherent argument for yourself. also, if you say something which is clearly WRONG, i will call you out on your ignorance. there is nothing wrong about that. call me elitist or whatever, but if you are clearly just being stupid i want you to know it. and g-troll, please just gtfo lol, all you do is flame and provide little backing for your ridiculous statements. i have very rarely heard you say anything productive or backed on reasonable facts. look at the "RSOF idiot" TIF join dates. they are roughly the same as yours, save 1-2 years. my old account for TIF is from like '03 or something. i think most of the "efficiency freaks" will agree with me in that we are annoyed when people are IGNORANT, not when people are INEFFICIENT. there is a huge difference.