The_Fray

Gnome scarf instead of the amulet. I know you said green but I like a healthy mix of both colours.

Go for Lava Flow, you might as well get the outfit right now. After you have the outfit, switch to granite for the rest.

In my opinion the game is better than it has ever been. I find that I can do activities that I used to do pre-trade removal and still keep the benefits that existed after. I only wish the people that I met who have since quit but I feel that Jagex has done everything they can to make this game better for all.

I agree on the loyalty article but would just like to point out that the "gift" analogy in the concluding paragraph was flawed. The "rest of Runescape" is hardly a "gift" if I am paying for it. A gift in essence is free. Also I don't know how old you are but I have always been exposed to the commercialization of Christmas. I am not sure there was ever a true meaning towards the idea of Christmas, and if there was I don't think I will ever find out.

As far as I have heard Zamorakian Spear > Sara Sword. It is essentially pretty simple, just watch out when you overload as you might get koed. Keep SS + turmoil on at all times until they are unaggressive, you might think you have enough health and then get hit an unlucky combo. The drops will make you break even or lose a little. There is no guide on tif that is up to date and with the use of overloads, just use the one that is there and replace extremes with overloads.

Is it any wonder that the people who are pro-efficiency and like to spend hours on end doing the same thing to race through the levels are the same ones that have no time to write an article? Didn't think so... Just because I disagreed with the article I am suddenly pro-efficiency? I may have argued on the behalf of the efficiency side but that does NOT make me an efficient player. Nor does it give you the right to assume that I like to grind to get my levels. I do not have enough time because I am currently finishing up my undergrad degree. Please do not make assumptions on how I or anyone else likes to play the game. Just to make another thing clear, not all who play the game efficiently are grinders. Just because you find something tedious doesn't mean they do.

Jets beat the Wild to halt the Wild's win streak at 7 games.

How do you get those figures for a large dungeon? The max XP I have got is arround 2 K :blink: You will always get more xp for larges on higher level floors with more prestige and in a team. Solo DG at lower levels is worse xp/hr than F2P Runecrafting. <_< If you're looking for tips on defeating the F2P bosses, check out Sonic's F2P Dungeoneering guide. btw - Har'Lakk the Riftsplitter is a nightmare for low combat levels. His minimum level is 80-something, and even at cb level 68 I get killed by him at least twice every time I face him. :wall: How are you dying to this guy? Maybe its just my combat level talking but as long as you avoid his portal attacks, you will be fine. You just have to be quick on your feet. Also make sure you have some antipoisons.

Only this caught my eye and interest. Hopefully it's actually decent and doesn't take too long to unlock. If making 4 doses is unlocked permanently then I think it should take a while as it is game changing and will affect herb prices across the board.

High alchemy has a longer animation. It'll interrupt your fishing. If you time it right I think the animation doesn't interrupt at least it did some f2p fishing. Low alch is much less effort though.

Useful guide I will be sure to look into it quite a bit once I start DGing again.

I think I know better than most people posting on this thread how the EP system works and about the deadlines, stress, and occasional last minute frenzy the EP faces. In my time on the editorial panel, which was almost a year, this was the type of article I didn't want to see. So no, any pro-efficiency article submitted would only do similar but with the tables turned against those who aren't metagamers. I don't mind articles about types of gameplay that simply observe them. What I do mind are ones that criticize a group or make assumptions that they are not having fun and are only grinding the game miserably. I'm tired of both sides fighting over which way of playing the game is better. We all have different tastes when it comes to what we enjoy doing, so why can't we just accept each other's way of playing? I agree with this wholeheartedly. You phrased it more eloquently than I ever could. This was my point from the start, the article was just waiting to be flamed from the efficiency crowd. An article doing the opposite would incite a similar response from the other side. Which brings it back to my point, if such an article is just going to cause headaches and arguments (including posts being removed), why have it on the Times? I know the Times people can't satisfy everyone, but the least they could do is not incite flaming by alienating one side. I will admit that I can step too far at times, but I never take an argument personally and I hope that none of you do the same. I have nothing against the writer of the article nor anyone on the EP.

If you are crafting runes then it will generally be slow. You can use a "friend" and have them come along for the ride and carry essence. That will speed it up a little but not a lot, make sure your "friend" is also carrying essence so you wont have keep trading him/her the essence.

I cannot provide "thoughts" on how to improve something that was completely based on someone's subjective misinformed opinion. I have been a reader for a long time, if I see an article that is clearly below the standard then I reserve the right to call out the writer and/or post criticism. This includes the statement "this shouldn't have been published" as in such an article was not worthy of being posted for the Times. "Then again, is it hard to click the back button?" Yes it is. I look forward to reading the Times every week. Here's the thing though. Tip.it Times EP is not solely concerned with the quality of an article, that I can assure you. Criticizing an article for its supposed lack of literary quality (real or subjective) supposes otherwise. For some objectively bad articles, it's easy to see why they should not have been published on basis of quality, but maybe a few passed the test because they filled a quota. Likewise there are some articles that have been praised for their quality (in various aspects) that I think, while not severe enough to be withheld from publication, were not immune from criticism. The Times is not a professional publication, which makes it even harder to pinpoint a certain threshold of quality that passes a candidate article onto publication. The EP is handled by non-salaried staff each with varying degrees of literary experience, taste and skill. There's no magical precedent of objective quality against which a prospective article may be accepted for further dissemination -- that is solely up to the people handling EP policy, which is concerned, again, with more than the raw literary quality of an article, taking into account quotas (if the spaces for this week's articles are filled, your article may be bumped back to next week) and perhaps other factors. Even if you don't take the criticism literally, I still agree with Crocefisso when he says you presuppose knowledge of EP policy with that claim, because then you get into two different ideas behind policy -- one concerned with "quality" and the other not so much. And when I say your opinion doesn't reflect reality, I'm not saying that since your opinion's subjective, it's invalid; I'm saying your opinion's irrelevant when you consider the criteria behind the selection process, despite the fact it may be correct about the quality of the aforementioned article. Thus, you and I were addressing two different points in your criticism. I should have clarified this; my apologies. I don't give two shits about the EP poilicy. I should have clarified that, my apologies. Unless you post such a policy for me and the users to look at, I will just disregard it as a figment of your imagination. You cannot hide behind something you have not divulged to rest of us. I am simply commenting as a long time reader... For me there is already a standard, something that has been established by previous writers. Lately I feel the quality has dropped off, hence my comments about some articles failing to meet the standard.

I cannot provide "thoughts" on how to improve something that was completely based on someone's subjective misinformed opinion. I have been a reader for a long time, if I see an article that is clearly below the standard then I reserve the right to call out the writer and/or post criticism. This includes the statement "this shouldn't have been published" as in such an article was not worthy of being posted for the Times. "Then again, is it hard to click the back button?" Yes it is. I look forward to reading the Times every week.

If the Times is subjective then we should be able to give our subjective opinion on whether something should be published or not. "That shouldn't have been published" can just as easily be in interpreted as a subjective opinion. There's no logic to that conclusion. The Times' content is wholly subjective, what it publishes is subjective only in relation to the aforementioned Editorial Policy. By making statements such as "That shouldn't have been published", you imply knowledge of this private policy. Thus "I wouldn't publish that" is, though petty, acceptable, whereas absolute statements such as "That shouldn't have been pulished" are downright wrong. "That shouldn't be published" can easily be a subjective opinion as in, "That article was so awful that it was not worthy of the Times". You are taking this too literally maybe you should take ForsakenMage's advice and take things with "a grain of salt".

If the Times is subjective then we should be able to give our subjective opinion on whether something should be published or not. "That shouldn't have been published" can just as easily be in interpreted as a subjective opinion. If this is the case then why cannot some writers manage to take opinions posted over here with "a grain of salt". I do agree that the Times needs a wider range of writers though, it seems to have the same feel every time. I do not know where we will find such writers though. I am just a reader, like many other simply does not have time to write articles for the Times. I appreciate those who put an effort into writing these articles but when I see something published that I find lacking to my taste then I am more likelier to make a post. There are other weeks when I like the articles being published but I do not comment because I see no point in making posts such as "Good article, I agree." as they seem increasingly repetitive.

Well above all we look for an interesting, unique idea that is well supported and argued. Ideally something that hasn't been done time and time again, but if you are able to put a new twist on an old idea - that's good too. Trolling for dollars anyone? :rolleyes: Seriously -- you folks are still so pissed about this to the extent that you publish this rubbish under Tip-It Times now? I realize that most of you cannot wrap your head around the idea that "fun" is subjective, and one could attempt to explain it to you once again, but in the end we cannot understand it for you. You're welcome to disagree with an article or a person's views, Blyaunte, but you do have to be respectful. Challenge the ideas but do not just call it rubbish or trolling. And the articles in the Tip.It Times do not reflect the view of the site, staff, or entire Editorial Panel. The articles only describe the author's opinions. Don't you think it gets a little "old" to see someone, time and again, attempt to make the same insipid argument against emergent/efficient/meta game play, based entirely upon their misbegotten notion of what efficient game play actually means -- and then have them assail such concept as not being "fun"? Personally, I could care a tinker's curse about what someone else thinks is "fun", but I am not about to attempt to deny whatever it is they consider to be fun as "not being fun" -- and then attempt to further qualify such an absurd point of view with some ridiculous epicurean non sequiturial metaphor. Not to mention the fact that efficient game play is more about the reasons "why" the game falls down the way it does, which unto its own self is considerable fun for those people who love to tinker with how games "play" -- but also that efficient game play means that while one spends less time grinding skills, one also has more time to attribute to those other things that one finds "fun" to do. :rolleyes: We really need a "like" kind of option here. I agree with this wholeheartedly. We have been through this argument so many times. "Fun" is subjective, yet some here believe that their way of playing is the only way of playing that is "fun". It is my opinion that some articles belong on the Times while others don't. Any article that is being posted on the main website is inherently a part of the website. As such as much as tip.it insists that all players are welcome here, you are alienating a group of players by allowing such articles to make their way on to the main website. If someone wants to write a pro-efficiency article we would gladly publish that as well. People shouldn't be alienated by differing viewpoints and criticism. If we write an article criticizing the firemaking skill are we alienating all the people who love firemaking? I do not have a problem with criticism, if it is objective. This is hardly criticism but rather an attack on the way other people enjoy the game and what others deem as "fun". I have a problem with people preaching efficiency. I also have a problem with people attacking those who play a certain way just because they deem that method to be less "fun". We all enjoy the game in our own way, none of us have deluded ourselves into believing something else. Assuming that someone playing in a certain manner is not enjoying themselves is wrong. And all is see are assumptions and speculation in that article. "He seeks to minimise the (fun) time spent playing the game, as if the game were a chore. I suspect that most proponents of 'pure efficiency' enjoy the game much less than they enjoy being good at it. Not being purely efficient would be to lose ground on others. Why not put more effort in if it means gaining a few more ranks?"

Trolling for dollars anyone? :rolleyes: Seriously -- you folks are still so pissed about this to the extent that you publish this rubbish under Tip-It Times now? I realize that most of you cannot wrap your head around the idea that "fun" is subjective, and one could attempt to explain it to you once again, but in the end we cannot understand it for you. You're welcome to disagree with an article or a person's views, Blyaunte, but you do have to be respectful. Challenge the ideas but do not just call it rubbish or trolling. And the articles in the Tip.It Times do not reflect the view of the site, staff, or entire Editorial Panel. The articles only describe the author's opinions. Don't you think it gets a little "old" to see someone, time and again, attempt to make the same insipid argument against emergent/efficient/meta game play, based entirely upon their misbegotten notion of what efficient game play actually means -- and then have them assail such concept as not being "fun"? Personally, I could care a tinker's curse about what someone else thinks is "fun", but I am not about to attempt to deny whatever it is they consider to be fun as "not being fun" -- and then attempt to further qualify such an absurd point of view with some ridiculous epicurean non sequiturial metaphor. Not to mention the fact that efficient game play is more about the reasons "why" the game falls down the way it does, which unto its own self is considerable fun for those people who love to tinker with how games "play" -- but also that efficient game play means that while one spends less time grinding skills, one also has more time to attribute to those other things that one finds "fun" to do. :rolleyes: We really need a "like" kind of option here. I agree with this wholeheartedly. We have been through this argument so many times. "Fun" is subjective, yet some here believe that their way of playing is the only way of playing that is "fun". It is my opinion that some articles belong on the Times while others don't. Any article that is being posted on the main website is inherently a part of the website. As such as much as tip.it insists that all players are welcome here, you are alienating a group of players by allowing such articles to make their way on to the main website.

The best place for 2x charms is CT fiends. I would barrage rock lobsters as they seem to provide the best charms overall, if you are willing to spend the money that is. Current rune prices are a bit high.

This reminds me when DG first came out. I did my first large and it took 2 hours and we got about 15k xp for it, me and my teammates were pretty pissed. Yeah DG is really slow at low levels.

Bottom right corner

People with full banks blaming it on "having stuff for every skill" just have poorly organised junk filled banks and if they were less oblivious to what is and is not useful they could easily shed a good 100-200 items. Eg rc specific items you need like 6 (possibly 7) items, not a whole tab of talismans: Wicked hood, 4 pouches, 1 pile of essence; the extra 7th would be grahak(sp?) for nat crafting. For RC I need all my RC tabs as well, for getting around as well as RCing with them. There is also my omni-staff that I am not dropping because it cost me 10k tokens, another item is the master runecrafter robes(which I do not own but someone else might). But I agree with the rest of your post, even with a rather full bank I can easily manage to keep it around 400 items. Omni staff true but you don;t NEED it. Rc robes in terms of efficiency are a bad investment and again not NEEDED Altar teletabs are again un-needed as most of the rune types are pointless, only blood is all that useful. Only natures, bloods and zmi is really worth it for rcing. In terms of getting around the tabs are still largely useless, any useful thing they are adjacent too have their own teleports or can be reached via wicked hood since they aren't exactly heaps of repeatable stuff at the altars. So in literal brutal terms of NEED only you only need 6 - 8 items for rc; sure many people use them. But if you full consider NEED only you can easily trim down you bank a heck of a lot and still maintain a good spread of un-needed items with space to spare. (eg I have omni staff) I disagree that the altar tabs are not needed. I need my air tabs for crafting armadyl runes. I need the earth tabs for getting to the saw mill penguin. The astral tabs are essential to switch to the lunar spellbook quickly. The blood tabs get me to my bloodveld tasks faster. The nature tabs are good for calquats and for runecrafting, as well as the east karamja penguin. It never hurts to have extra teleports to different places as you never know where it might save you time. I use my wicked hood primarily for runecrafting, as it nets me 128k profit everyday for 3 minutes of runecrafting, which I find well worth it. \ EDIT: Oops and I forgot the law altar teleport, which is the fastest way to get to entrana.

Superheating, you will gain both smithing and magic experience. You will also profit, which considering smithing prices is pretty beneficial.

A berserker ring on the ring slot will also help especially if you plan on getting imbued rings later on.