Tip.It Times: 15 Mar 2009

[3rkid]

I think the articles were great this week. Also, seeing the scientific paper get criticized makes me feel better about the criticism I receive; if something this good gets trolled, then any criticism should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

 

 

Clearly, the community seeks to find fault with anything that isn't written precisely for them as individuals.

I believe the complaints stem from the unnecessarily complex example, not from the quality of writing. I myself skimmed after he started breaking out the math, simply because it was so complex.

 

 

 

It really wasn't that complex, he just made it look complicated. I felt like he thought the reader is stupid with the over explanation of simple stuff.

[stormveritas]

I believe the complaints stem from the unnecessarily complex example, not from the quality of writing. I myself skimmed after he started breaking out the math, simply because it was so complex.

 

 

 

It really wasn't that complex, he just made it look complicated. I felt like he thought the reader is stupid with the over explanation of simple stuff.

 

 

 

So in successive posts, we have complaints that:

 

1. It was too complicated.

 

2. It was simple and condescending.

 

 

 

Thank you for proving my point. The community can never be satisfied.

[bedman]

I believe the complaints stem from the unnecessarily complex example, not from the quality of writing. I myself skimmed after he started breaking out the math, simply because it was so complex.

 

 

 

It really wasn't that complex, he just made it look complicated. I felt like he thought the reader is stupid with the over explanation of simple stuff.

 

 

 

So in successive posts, we have complaints that:

 

1. It was too complicated.

 

2. It was simple and condescending.

 

 

 

Thank you for proving my point. The community can never be satisfied.

 

 

 

Kid meant the basic concept of the article was simple but the author just explained it poorly.

[Danqazmlp]

I believe the complaints stem from the unnecessarily complex example, not from the quality of writing. I myself skimmed after he started breaking out the math, simply because it was so complex.

 

 

 

It really wasn't that complex, he just made it look complicated. I felt like he thought the reader is stupid with the over explanation of simple stuff.

 

 

 

So in successive posts, we have complaints that:

 

1. It was too complicated.

 

2. It was simple and condescending.

 

 

 

Thank you for proving my point. The community can never be satisfied.

 

 

 

Storm, you seem to be angry at us readers for not liking your article last week, don't take it so personally, we know you probably took a long time writing it and we appreciate that, but we won't all like everything all of the time. Some of us like some articles, others don't its never personal.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't get how saying it was too complicated for somebody, or somebody else saying it is a bit condescending is never being satisfied, some people did like the article. Me personally didn't like it as i've never been a player who who works efficiently, i'm a person who sits at the bank for 20 mins then does a task slowly but in a more fun way.

 

 

 

To summ up: We all will like different articles, i doubt there has ever been one which everybody has liked, or everybody has disliked.

[ForsakenMage]

the fictional article was a good read, but i find it strange that the story/characters forsakenmage began with are now continued by N0M_AN0R. are these stories going to be continuing but with a different author every chapter?

We'll let you guys figure this one out. ;) It's more fun that way.

[PuppyKing]

The first article hurt my brain.

[stormveritas]

To summ up: We all will like different articles, i doubt there has ever been one which everybody has liked, or everybody has disliked.

 

 

 

I think this is a very fair, very reasonable expectation for a community.

 

 

 

However, without hijacking too much, many, many Tip It members are not so simply bound. A very significant minority thirsts for something to complain about, attacking any content created by someone other than them.

 

 

 

Perfect example here: I understand if the experimental procedure doesn't appeal to all, but don't BS me and say it's a "poorly written" article. It's not. It's very well written. There are too many people here lusting for someone to attack. If you're such a prodigal writer that you're Hemingway next to our staff, by all means create some content FOR the board and contribute.

 

 

 

[/soap box]

[UnknownRemoval]

Enjoyed the Scientific Scaper, all I normally do is look at how much money I have, buy a pile of rubbish and do stuff with it until I end up where I want to. :

[Rosanante1]

I'm afraid my eyes glazed over after the second paragraph of the science bit.

 

 

 

I prefer to call it 'smart training'. You can check Tip It for best practice or guides on how to be effective and not waste your time unecessarily grinding away.

 

 

 

Also, a case in point. I visited the gorillas on Ape Atoll the other night with a DFS in my shield slot when a higher levelled player said I should be using a Rune Defender. A hypothesis I intend to challenge very soon.

[skiller43v3r]

The Vampire articles are very interesting... i like them alot and the scientific scaper was also very well written....

[Mercifull]

And thats just one excel file of many purely for summoning :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah its geeky but if you're serious about levelling a particular skill then its the best way to work things out.

[langer]

What most of don't seem to realize is that the article scientific scaper wasn't about the most efficient to level WC and fletch through yew or maple... It was about the attitude underlying players who calculate their gameplay. It was about showing what some player do to achieve their goals and how mathematics and science can be used to train faster and more efficiently. Sure the example was skewed and not thorough enough but guess what? It was stated in the article! The point of it was not to show this specific point, but rather was motivates the player and what variables and functions have to be considered in the equation.

 

 

 

I have to agree with stormveritas that a lot of people in this community grab the first opportunity to bash on anything anyone say. The times is written to provoke discussions and reactions from the viewers, not to gather criticism of their writing skills.

 

 

 

Goinc kinda back on-topic, I have to say I have a coupe spreadsheets in similar fashion to mercifull with skills like fishing and woodcutting. When you reach a certain high level, it's a good thing to know what is faster, more profitable or the best balanced way of training. I used to fish sharks for a long time because it's the more profitable way to fish, once I realised that monkfish were only 10% less money while between nearly 3 times the xp, let me tell you I dropped that harpoon for good and stuck at piscatoris.

[Earth_Poet]

To summ up: We all will like different articles, i doubt there has ever been one which everybody has liked, or everybody has disliked.

 

 

 

I think this is a very fair, very reasonable expectation for a community.

 

 

 

However, without hijacking too much, many, many Tip It members are not so simply bound. A very significant minority thirsts for something to complain about, attacking any content created by someone other than them.

 

 

 

Perfect example here: I understand if the experimental procedure doesn't appeal to all, but don't BS me and say it's a "poorly written" article. It's not. It's very well written. There are too many people here lusting for someone to attack. If you're such a prodigal writer that you're Hemingway next to our staff, by all means create some content FOR the board and contribute.

 

 

 

[/soap box]

 

 

 

 

 

If you really feel that way then shut down the discussion threads for the Times and just publish articles. Yes, you are right. There are some people who attack everything. Maybe we can chalk it up to bored, apathetic teens, but I think this is something more personal for you. I read your article last week. I can't speak for everybody, but I still stand by my comments. However, I think you summed it up here:

 

 

 

any criticism should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

 

 

Take what you need, shrug off the rest, and move on. You can't get bent out of shape about it.

 

 

 

On Topic: You may prefer the "fun" method over the scientific approach, but sooner or later you're going to grow tired of wearing low level equipment, and tired of never having any cash, and tired of not being able to finish certain quests. This is wear you start training, but what's the best way? Simple, open a guide.

 

 

 

Who do you think writes those guides? How do you think they approach writing them? For those of you who think the scientific scaper article was bland, complicated, or common knowledge, consider most of the wonderful guides you read and follow (and are now common knowledge) are written out and tested using this theory. It separates the leaders from the pack.

 

 

 

I think why the article rubbed so many the wrong way is it came off a bit like a class lecture, and most of your audience is still young enough to be forced to go to school. I thought it was a good article.

[bedman]

I tend to reply only when I disagree. I mean, what does another "Nice article" contribute to the discussion.

 

 

 

Same goes for every other topic. "+1" doesn't contribute, except if it's a poll.

[03warrior]

I liked the first article. I try and calculate every thing before I do any training. It made me want to go test out different forms of mage bursting, and find a method to try fast but still come close to breaking even.

 

 

 

I didn't read the second. I still haven't read any fictional articles. I never get around to it.

[Danqazmlp]

 

 

 

On Topic: You may prefer the "fun" method over the scientific approach, but sooner or later you're going to grow tired of wearing low level equipment, and tired of never having any cash, and tired of not being able to finish certain quests. This is wear you start training, but what's the best way? Simple, open a guide.

 

 

 

Who do you think writes those guides? How do you think they approach writing them? For those of you who think the scientific scaper article was bland, complicated, or common knowledge, consider most of the wonderful guides you read and follow (and are now common knowledge) are written out and tested using this theory. It separates the leaders from the pack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think i buck the trend of fun players alot, i've never extensively done anything mathmatically for training or making money, but i can wear any items, have finished all the quests, written a few guides, have some very high stats and have an above average amount of money. It may be because i've played for over 5 years.

[Earth_Poet]

I think i buck the trend of fun players alot, i've never extensively done anything mathmatically for training or making money, but i can wear any items, have finished all the quests, written a few guides, have some very high stats and have an above average amount of money. It may be because i've played for over 5 years.

 

 

 

We may not all approach it as in depth as written in the article, but unless you are completely relying on other guides and what your friends say you use the math. Let's say I want train wcing, and I'm looking for a good guide to help me out. Are you going to listen to this guide:

 

 

 

 

 

cut normal trees lvl 1-15

 

cut oaks lvl 15-30

 

cut willows lvl 30-60

 

cut yews 60-75

 

cut yews or magic 75-99

 

 

 

...or are you going to listen to one that goes in depth and explores the reasoning behind their approach: explaining the best spots to cut, the best times to cut, and graphs xp per hour on different trees? If the author argues cutting yews at lvl 90 will be more profitable then magics, do you expect them to back it up by researching it?

 

 

 

I'm curious how you write your guides without doing research. Sure, you could use your best guesses based on your experience, but it makes more sense to research the different possibilities so you have clear evidence to confidently back your claim.

 

 

 

Anyways, the author's point was made in the very first sentence:

 

 

 

A scientific Scaper is an efficient Scaper.

 

 

 

And it's hard to dispute that claim. The article demonstrates how this type of player plans his or her goals, and can become self reliant. It certainly is more efficient than some players I've seen who randomly walk up to high levels and ask "How you make money?"

[lord_troyus]

Im a pretty big fan of the times.. but wow this weeks was.. horrible.

 

 

 

The scientific scaper took a basic thing that we do - comparing exp results - and made it long winded and frankly very dull.

 

 

 

The second article was a better read, but nothing amazing. It could be pretty good as it has an okay start, just needs to build on it a little more.

 

 

 

The DYK was.. obvious. I mean cmon, its got a left click option of "Equip".

[quelmotz]

The first article might be boring but its true. Its not so easy as comparing the exp gained, there's also time and money. Unless you're a billionaire who plays 10 hours a day, you won't only look at the exp.

 

 

 

And btw, this article isn't about telling you how to train wc and fletching effectively, its to prove a common way of thinking wrong. Many people will think "Yay! I got 55 mining. Now I can powermine mithril!" Obviously this is stupid as iron is the best ore for powermining at that level. Its the same concept. So its basically trying to say that sometimes the higher leveled thing that you can mine/fish/wc/fletch/whatever is not necessarily the best one.

[Jasquith]

Note: I apologise if this goes a little off-topic, I will try and keep it relevant and as concise as possible.

 

 

 

I shudder when I see the word scientific applied to pretty much anything these days. It has become a powerful word... and used to sell make-up and political spin. The contents of that article were far from scientific- mutton dressed as lamb, if you will. The truth of the matter is that science is just as subjective as anything else in the world- it is built on assumptions. Now before some people jump on the "science is the be all and end all" bandwagon and others jump on the rant bashing train, I should point out that I am in my third year of undergraduate chemistry at the University of Birmingham, so I am myself a scientist.

 

 

 

The problem with the article is not the intense paragraphs of calculations, I conduct such calculations myself. Nor was it the poor layout of the aforementioned calculations, but the premise of the scientific method. The method, when initially formed, sought to bring order and rationale to our understanding of the universe, but has instead been applied to anything and everything that is sought to be proven, irrespective of the sheer subjectivity of the subject matter. To compound this problem, the input has been poorly represented in itself. For example, any application of scientific method requires a plethora of potential hypotheses. Without going into needless detail, these are not limited to what somebody believes to be true, as reported in the article, but more a statement to be proven or disproven based an underlying theory- it takes no necessary input from the beliefs of the observer. There was no mention in the article of a null hypothesis, nor of an attempt to reject the initial hypothesis.

 

 

 

The article is fraught with unnecessary degrees of accuracy (are seven significant figures really needed?) and would be laughed at, even in the pseudo-scientific online community. The truth of the matter is that this article clearly took a long time to research, but disappointingly less time to write and format. As a standalone article promoting thoughtful play in favour of mindlessness, I would be much more inclined to praise it. As a presentation of arguably the most important central concept in modern science, I cannot extend such appraisal. It is important to not that this is not a personal criticism, it is an evaluation of a body of work and I would be glad to read further analyses from the author (Necromagus) in the hope that this thorough work could be better shown so that it could receive the full credit that it deserves.

[Hubs]

Scientific Scaper

 

 

 

Reminds of myself... :thumbsup:

[SwreeTak]

Reply to the scientific scaper article: I agree fully. With scientific methods and planning you can succeed better in almost everything in life. The question is however if it, Runescape, a party or anything, is worth the time it takes to do all this scientific work and planning?

[bedman]

The first article might be boring but its true. Its not so easy as comparing the exp gained, there's also time and money. Unless you're a billionaire who plays 10 hours a day, you won't only look at the exp.

 

 

 

And btw, this article isn't about telling you how to train wc and fletching effectively, its to prove a common way of thinking wrong. Many people will think "Yay! I got 55 mining. Now I can powermine mithril!" Obviously this is stupid as iron is the best ore for powermining at that level. Its the same concept. So its basically trying to say that sometimes the higher leveled thing that you can mine/fish/wc/fletch/whatever is not necessarily the best one.

 

 

 

There is time and money too, but the thing his, the author's calculations were unnecessarily complicated and totally flowed for the fact that they don't factor in SELLING of logs. So, at one point the author overcomlicates things, and at another point he simplifies things too much.

 

 

 

I could expain the problem probably in 1/3 less text, but 3x more understandeable.

 

 

 

Now don't get me wrong, it's nicely written and all, I probably couldn't do that better. But the content is just inaccurate.

[quelmotz]

Can you really produce such a good one? Prove it then.

 

 

 

Give him a break. Its not easy writing such a long report.

[Forerunner]

Wasn't a very interesting read in my opinion.

 

Unless it's a massive goal (eg, 99 in a skill), I try to spend more time having a good time than doing calculations.

 

 

 

Don't bother with fiction anymore.