The article was very short, you could say it was simply very precise and to the point. But I feel like it was just too short and doesn't really give us that much to read and think about. It seems like something that most people know about and the article didn't teach or show us anything new about safe-spots or safe-spotting.

 

There have been 23 replies in this thread, three of which concerned safespots and the rest on the writing style. I agree that personal attacks are unneccessary, however.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is sad, this is a discussion thread about content...Not the authors writing style.

 

'Discuss the article here'.

 

 

 

That means everything about the article, and this isn't the first time an article has had replies about the article being good or bad. Actually, no one is complaining about positive compliments about the writing style, even though Tip.It apparently doesn't want replies on the writing style, just the discussion. That's kind of redundant.

 

 

 

Almost every other article published with a topic on the forums has had reviews of good or bad about it. Only now an admin decided to post their opinion about it, which lead to the discussion about it.

i never noticed there were safespots gone,i never use them though ;)

A decent but short article, has a good point. Don't bash the author, but I feel that the writing style is fair game. Discuss though, explain why, and don't bash.

Whenever a safe-spot gets removed, people complain that they liked using it. But other people complain that they don't like seeing safe-spotters getting "easy" kills without taking any damage. The same applies to tactics like surrounding the Saradomin boss in the GWD with rangers so that she'd wander round and round without hitting anyone (until Aug 5th when she got updated, amidst many complaints from people who could no longer handle her).

 

 

 

It's blatantly a flaw in the game if a monster can't route-find properly or doesn't know how to handle multiple attackers in a multiway area. RuneScape's always had pretty limited route-finding on its monsters, so they get stuck on corners and other obstacles. That's not to say that safe-spotting = bug abuse. It's a fair way to train. But safe-spotting is ultimately one of the game's dumber features - a big demon should be able to walk round a little rock! - so it's understandable that Jagex doesn't bother preserving safe spots when it doesn't suit them to do so.

 

It may be a game flaw, but how else are rangers and mages supposed to fight? The purpose of both styles is distance, and there's really no other way to do this other than safespots. Especially since, from what I recall, range and mage armor isn't particularly effective against melee attacks.

 

 

 

And to those who claim the article is poorly written; few, if any, of the posts here are more well-written than the article itself. Think about that.

this will be short as i messed up my reply and lost it last time :?

 

 

 

congratulations on having the self belief to create an article, i look forward to you submitting more - something i have not had the imagination nor created the time to do - so respect to you

 

 

 

i wasnt 100% certain as to the objective of the article, im sure it was more than they are disappearing. If that was made a bit stronger then maybe a lot of the flames wouldnt have arrived - some would because they just would :( .

 

 

 

the article wasnt for me as i know about safespotting and didnt introduce any new twists, however there are no doubt hundreds of people who will see the article this week and may be compelled to explore further into new places safe in the knowledge that they may be able to take on higher creatures without getting murdered. Im currently banned - lets not go there!!!! otherwise i would go and explore a little to see if i could add any new spots which im thinking may have been the point of your article

 

 

 

I use fubai's safespot guide in the archive of wisdom, its still pretty useful if not quite up to date - couldnt something like that have been referenced or isnt that allowed

 

 

 

I safespot slayer tasks to train my range, it makes my training slower (grr range) especially as often you have to wait for a respawn but thats my choice.

 

 

 

I will always leave the safespotters target when doing mellee, unless of course he starts to target mine :twisted:

 

 

 

I think safespots were deliberately created by jagex when they made the game to help gameplay - come on they must have been; just look at some of them - however maybe the people working on the graphics dont have the same objectives, they are perhaps more concerned with visual impact. I totally agree with jagex removing safespots from areas where great wealth can be found - balanced risk vs reward keeps a stable economy

How I would have trained range without a safe spot I do not know. It is indeed a bad thing that they are disappearing, although I haven't noticed it myself (I don't play RS much anymore). A well written article, it is a bit short but it gets to the point. Thanks!

Was a good read. I personally never noticed due to the fact that I love melee over mage and range.. :oops:

I didnt mind if the article was a little shorter then the other ones are.

 

It was a good read none the less.

 

 

 

I have noticed a few safe spots dissapearing, but I have found a few new ones that work fine.

 

Mostly, I use melee combat though. I like bashing monsters to death. :mrgreen:

Not all that good but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

This was just...terrible. Almost no discussion value comes out of this at all.

It was an okay read, but I agree it was short. The tip at the end was almost as long.

"Ooh that was terrible"

 

"Wasn't written good at all"

 

"Not good at all"

 

etc

 

 

 

Ok then. Next week we are going to have a Guest article from Sir_Hartlar. Then one from everyone else who bagged this article. If you aren't happy with it, then go and write one yourself. And it better be good. I think this was a pretty good article, even better then a few The_Editor wrote. But since no one knows who the editor is, no one ever bags out his articles. It just seems that because it is a Guest Writer everyone feels the need to add in their 2 cents and say how they can do a way better job.

"Ooh that was terrible"

 

"Wasn't written good at all"

 

"Not good at all"

 

etc

 

 

 

Ok then. Next week we are going to have a Guest article from Sir_Hartlar. Then one from everyone else who bagged this article. If you aren't happy with it, then go and write one yourself. And it better be good. I think this was a pretty good article, even better then a few The_Editor wrote. But since no one knows who the editor is, no one ever bags out his articles. It just seems that because it is a Guest Writer everyone feels the need to add in their 2 cents and say how they can do a way better job.

 

No, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the author at all, just that the article WASN'T WELL WRITTEN. I don't care if the author was Aldous Huxley, if it isn't well written, I'm not going to praise it. There was very little material in the article, it wasn't colorful at all, and it didn't even have a hook.

Constructive posts are the thing that is needed here.

 

 

 

"It wasnt well-written."

 

 

 

How can this person improve their wrighting abilities.

 

 

 

Instead of just posting that it was no good, try to post how it could be made better. :mrgreen:

im just glad that they left the rex safespot meaning it was confermed by a mod that it as never suposed to be there :?

Constructive posts are the thing that is needed here.

 

 

 

"It wasnt well-written."

 

 

 

How can this person improve their wrighting abilities.

 

 

 

Instead of just posting that it was no good, try to post how it could be made better. :mrgreen:

 

I've got a few, although I'm not a writer or anything...

 

He could make it longer - stretch it out, more examples, maybe branch off a bit but not too much. Pictures are great as long as there aren't too many.

 

Actual writing techniques - I guess he could not give away the subject in his very first paragraph. It is very clearly stated. I know some people might disagree with this, but I think that the first paragraph should have built up to the second paragraph.

 

That's pretty much all I got to say, except that the techniques didn't look that bad to me.

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh, and the respecting others' safespots is BS. Other than that it's good.

One should base an article's value on material, and if it was conveyed in a readable manner. It shouldn't be based on hooks or a "writing style", I, for example, have my own style of writing, which isn't proper, but gets the point across with efficiency.

 

 

 

If you think the article is bad, write your own, I'd like to see you do better.

As Armadyllo said, safe spots are merely an exploitation of the poor pathfinding abilities of Runescapes monsters. But, on the other hand, range and magic tend to be more expensive and get little to no advantages over melee. They hit lower, have to be used with their own armor types or have great reductions in ability, they splash frequently, in the case of magic, and they, as mentioned before, are more expensive. They need every advantage they can scrounge up.

OK so one person bashes the author, and everyone feels the need to jump on the bandwagon and do likewise? Did you even READ the article? I have read every single one, published dozens of them when I was Crew Leader, and trust me, this one was definitely better than others that have been published in recent times. Economy, shmonomy. Now there's a topic that's been covered to DEATH. OK, so maybe the subjectmatter of this particular article wasn't exactly to your taste, and maybe you disagree with the author's opinion, but that does NOT mean that the article wasn't well written. It's fairly interesting, has broad appeal, the style is good, the ideas flow from one sentence and paragraph to the next, it's not full of spelling errors, etc. Sometimes I get the feeling that some guest articles aren't very thoroughly reviewed for grammar and spelling before they're published. Not this time - either a thorough review was done, or the article simply didn't need it.

 

 

 

So get off your high horses and pick your battles. This isn't the article that needs attacking. There are others that will fit that bill much more nicely.

 

 

 

However the purposed was conveyed and the article avoided spelling and grammar errors that doesn't mean it was the best article ever written, personally I didn't like the articles flow.

If you think the article is bad, write your own, I'd like to see you do better.

 

I'm not a great chef, but I can tell the difference between food that is well prepared, and food that isn't. In the same way, none of us has to be capable of writing better than this article to be dissatisfied by it. Nobody wants to make the guy feel bad, but a lot of us really didn't like it. I didn't like it, either. I thought it was kind of uninteresting, and I'm not sure I would have finished reading it if it was longer.

 

 

 

Some of you might be disappointed by all the negative feedback this article got. But I'm glad there are still people who are willing to be a little blunt and say what they think, even if it hurts, instead of encouraging something they really didn't like in the first place.

Here's a little guide to find safespots:

 

[hide=Safespotting guide]For all monsters:

 

- Stand north/south of an obstacle (which you can range over), while the monster stands to the west/east of it.

 

- Stand across from an obstacle (this one is kind of obvious).

 

- Use the tag method described in the article, if you know where the wandering limit of that monster is.

 

 

 

Extra methods for monsters larger than 1 square:

 

- Stand in places the monster can't go (narrow passages).

 

- Stand on the southwest/northwest of an obstacle (you don't have to be able to range over it), with the monster standing north/south of it. (Picture)

 

- Stand southwest/southeast of an obstacle (you don't have to be able to range over it), with the monster standing east/west of it. (Picture)

 

 

 

Ps: You can only use this on melee monsters (duh).

• [/hide]

 

Hope this helps ...

One should base an article's value on material, and if it was conveyed in a readable manner. It shouldn't be based on hooks or a "writing style", I, for example, have my own style of writing, which isn't proper, but gets the point across with efficiency.

 

 

 

If you think the article is bad, write your own, I'd like to see you do better.

 

Wow. You obviously don't know anything about writing or composition at all. A great writer can turn nothing into an amazing piece with style alone. If you want to write something respectable, it needs to follow the guidelines. Now that isn't to say that each thing you write has to be from the same stock, though. I think you're in need of a University level writing course, possibly even a high school composition class. Talk to some authors and tell them what you have to say about writing, I'd be interested to hear their responses.

I personally liked the article a lot. It covered what it was trying to cover efficiently, interestingly and altogether quite well. I thought it was well written and I enjoyed the writing style. If you don't like it, don't feel the need to flame it just for that. Your opinion isn't the only one that matters. If you didn't like it, why don't you give out a little constructive criticism? You know why you didn't like it, so why don't you share that with us, so the author knows what to do better next time?

 

 

 

The article itself was nice. Very nice. It doesn't matter that it was short, it had more quality in the writing than several of the Editor's pieces did. Is it just the fact that it was a guest author that makes you feel the need to attack it? Yeah. Yeah, it was. Why? Because you can. The author wrote better than most people could. No need to attack it.

I personally liked the article a lot. It covered what it was trying to cover efficiently, interestingly and altogether quite well. I thought it was well written and I enjoyed the writing style. If you don't like it, don't feel the need to flame it just for that. Your opinion isn't the only one that matters. If you didn't like it, why don't you give out a little constructive criticism? You know why you didn't like it, so why don't you share that with us, so the author knows what to do better next time?

 

 

 

The article itself was nice. Very nice. It doesn't matter that it was short, it had more quality in the writing than several of the Editor's pieces did. Is it just the fact that it was a guest author that makes you feel the need to attack it? Yeah. Yeah, it was. Why? Because you can. The author wrote better than most people could. No need to attack it.

 

Oh so since my opinion disagrees with your opinion (which clearly stated by you is better than mine) I shouldn't express it? I'm not flaming him whatsoever, just stating that I thought that it was a poorly written article. I had no idea that it was a guest author, and a lot of the time, I dislike when the Editor does columns. If I have an opinion on something, I'm going to express it. I actually think I could write a far better article or short summary than this author, but I'd rather not waste my time writing something about RuneScape.

 

 

 

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_technique Here's a list of literary techniques. Granted many of these are not applicable to the style (creative non-fiction) that the author is using, I doubt more than 2 of these were used in the article.