Tip.It Times: 14 June 2009

[BloodShard]

Great articles guys and I never new about the weapon speed thing.

 

 

 

agreed. I loved this weeks articles. I really dont think rest is such a big deal. Of course i have not experienced the (Drop?) in prices of energy potions since i am f2p at the moment, I do not think it is affecting anything at all in terms of myself.

[Spuddy10]

Enjoyed both articles! Great job. :lol:

 

The DYK was kinda pointless, but cool at the same time. It kind of shows the messed-up way JaGeX thinks. :D

[Sir_Squab]

Great articles.

 

Change is necessary for an MMORPG to grow.

 

 

 

Personally, I love the run update.

 

It makes me hate training Agility a little less. :lol:

On topic: if the highest weapon speed is 10, could someone tell me what the Abyssal Whip speed is? I thought this was quite an interesting read, I've always been curious about understanding how RSC worked.

 

 

 

Abyssal whip is 4, Godsword is 3, Dharok's Axe is 2, and I think that the fastest (darts) is 7.

 

 

 

Abyssal Whip is 4? I'm not sure if that's a little slow or a little fast?

 

So I'm guessing a DDS is about 5 then?

 

 

 

No offense and nothing personal, but I am always amazed how many people think that abyssal whips, scimitars, and daggers have different attack speeds. I've known for years they have the same speed...Figured it out in Tzhaar years ago, when I had a DDS or d scimmy....dds I think...Me and a guy with a whip were fighting the same monster. We attacked with the same speed.

 

 

 

ONTOPIC: I have to say I liked the 2nd article better, although the first was well written. And I didn't read the fictional article because I'm a noob like that. It was very nice to know exactly how beds worked in RSC.

[ford_landau]

I still remembering buying a sleeping in the general store and then selling it for 20k to someone minning.

 

 

 

it didn't feel like that long ago lol! 7 years sure did pass fast! :) Hopefully Ill have a party hat in 7 years :P

[strilmus]

While a weapon with a speed of 10 would have infinite attack speed, such a weapon would not necessarily cause the game to crash.

 

 

 

It would, however, instantaneously kill anything as soon as you hit them, save for monsters immune to the weapon, in which case the game would crash after hitting maximum capacity for memory or whatnot.

 

 

 

Should anybody get ahold of one of these suckers, I'd certainly advise against trying to hit some slayer monsters or vyrewatch.

[hihihi727]

um .. I said the same thing ... and obv. wikia uses an already existing info ... they have the same scales + an explanation what is the attack speed (prolly copied too)

 

 

 

Wikia/Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source. It even says on the front page, "The wiki...that anyone can edit!" Just backing what you said up with a credible source.

 

 

 

Maybe not runescape wikia, but wikipedia is as reliable as anything else on the internet, probably more.

[quelmotz]

um .. I said the same thing ... and obv. wikia uses an already existing info ... they have the same scales + an explanation what is the attack speed (prolly copied too)

 

 

 

Wikia/Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source. It even says on the front page, "The wiki...that anyone can edit!" Just backing what you said up with a credible source.

 

 

 

Maybe not runescape wikia, but wikipedia is as reliable as anything else on the internet, probably more.

 

 

 

Please...I don't know why so many idiots think wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It is. Just because anyone can edit it doesn't mean its unreliable. Its constantly checked by "mods" that remove any false edits. I'm not sure on this, but maybe the edits have to go through a "mod" before getting into wikipedia.

 

 

 

Back to topic, I agree that this week's articles were great.

 

 

 

The one on change is my favorite. I hate idiots who constantly whine about jagex's updates to the game that made it so much worse than RSC, etc. They'll never understand that Jagex MUST change in order to survive.

 

 

 

So if a weapon speed is 10, it hits every 0 seconds. Right?

 

 

 

Speed - Hits every

 

10 - 0 - In other words infinite.

 

9 - 0.6

 

8 - 1.2

 

7 - 1.8

 

6 - 2.4

 

5 - 3

 

4 - 3.6

 

3 - 4.2

 

2 - 4.8

 

1 - 5.4

 

 

 

I always thought 2h swords were only half as fast as scimitars, but actually they were slightly more than half as fast (1.8 seconds slower).

 

 

 

And I always thought Jagex was rather stupid to make a 1-10 speed bar, but only use 4 of the bars (3, 4, 5, 6) often. (some rubbish like (forgot name) crossbow should be slower) I always think of daggers as faster than scimitars. I mean a DAGGER weighs less than half a kilogramme, but a scimitar is probably at least 1.5 -2.5 kilogrammes.

[FooK-A-Ji]

I failed to see the connection between fatigue and the new rest option.

 

Fatigue was a nuisance and slowed the game down for everyone. Rest does nothing like that. :)

 

Good well-formulated articles though and great job.

[waheera1]

um .. I said the same thing ... and obv. wikia uses an already existing info ... they have the same scales + an explanation what is the attack speed (prolly copied too)

 

 

 

Wikia/Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source. It even says on the front page, "The wiki...that anyone can edit!" Just backing what you said up with a credible source.

 

 

 

Maybe not runescape wikia, but wikipedia is as reliable as anything else on the internet, probably more.

 

 

 

Please...I don't know why so many idiots think wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It is. Just because anyone can edit it doesn't mean its unreliable. Its constantly checked by "mods" that remove any false edits. I'm not sure on this, but maybe the edits have to go through a "mod" before getting into wikipedia.

 

 

 

 

Those "idiots" are right, to be fair... Largely yes, Wikipedia is fine and probably does just give facts, but at the same time it should never be relied upon as your only source of information. Universities ALWAYS state that you shouldn't use Wikipedia simply because anyone can edit anything and, whilst most mistakes are usually edited out soon after, some can remain for weeks.

[Earth_Poet]

Please...I don't know why so many idiots think wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It is. Just because anyone can edit it doesn't mean its unreliable. Its constantly checked by "mods" that remove any false edits. I'm not sure on this, but maybe the edits have to go through a "mod" before getting into wikipedia.

 

 

 

I wasn't going to respond to the previous post, but since you felt like calling me an idiot, I have to say something. Honestly, I don't know who you think you are.

 

 

 

Every single academic class I've taken over the last 3 years that required any kind of research paper begins on the first day with a warning not to cite wikipedia as a source, otherwise it's an automatic "F" for the paper. There have been several incidents of incredible information, and plagiarism posted on the site. A couple of years ago, their most prominent editor was exposed for being a fraud. Because there is controversy over the accuracy of information posted on wikipedia, it can't be considered credible to cite your information from there.

 

 

 

Reading your comments that you follow up with, you don't even sound sure of how wikipedia works. How are you calling me an idiot then? You are going to try and shoot me down with what - your best guesses? It used to be that ANYBODY could edit the articles. Now it's restricted to registered users. They also have editors to check over the articles. It can be a good site to look at for personal knowledge, but shouldn't be the only place you look.

 

 

 

I will concede that wikipedia is usually correct, but you should've taken the time to read what I had said instead of throwing insults. I said it isn't ALWAYS a reliable source. Sorry, but I'm going to have to say that what Jagex posts directly on the Runescape website is going to be a more credible source than wikipedia.

 

 

 

This has gone way off topic now, and I apologize to this week's authors. I'm done responding to ignorant posters.

[thealmightytanya]

Lol, I hated the fatigue system ... Practically none of my friends were around for it though! Only my boyfriend and best friend ... The run energy update was cool, but it kind of ruins the point of "Restore Run Energy" from the Explorer's Ring, energy potions, boots of lightness, etc. :( But I still love it. :D

[Deathmath]

Woo wikipedia debate.

 

There was some study that found the real wikipedia as being as accurate as world book. (but it still CAN be unreliable and so shouldn't be cited) still with runescape wiki being open to the public and with many fewer people, and a lot of original research going into it, accuracy can be an issue.

 

 

 

On the topic of the articles, good job all. I remember fatigue... :D

[greecl]

wow! nice articles! when father aereck started to cry though, i just burst out in tears. i mean that was their home, and their workplace and their place of worship. so sad...

[waheera1]

Woo wikipedia debate.

 

There was some study that found the real wikipedia as being as accurate as world book. (but it still CAN be unreliable and so shouldn't be cited) still with runescape wiki being open to the public and with many fewer people, and a lot of original research going into it, accuracy can be an issue.

 

 

 

On the topic of the articles, good job all. I remember fatigue... :D

 

 

 

Completely off topic here, for which I apologise profusely, but I have to say:

 

 

 

Deathmath that is one hell of a sig! Your artist has done an excellent job there. :-)

[l0rd]

 

Completely off topic here, for which I apologise profusely, but I have to say:

 

 

 

Deathmath that is one hell of a sig! Your artist has done an excellent job there. :-)

 

That is what the private messaging system is for. ;)

 

 

 

But anyways, I really enjoyed working with this weeks articles. I like how there are the two articles based on totally different things, but intersect in a common theme. Its almost like the authors planned this before starting their articles. =P~

[hihihi727]

Please...I don't know why so many idiots think wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It is. Just because anyone can edit it doesn't mean its unreliable. Its constantly checked by "mods" that remove any false edits. I'm not sure on this, but maybe the edits have to go through a "mod" before getting into wikipedia.

 

 

 

I wasn't going to respond to the previous post, but since you felt like calling me an idiot, I have to say something. Honestly, I don't know who you think you are.

 

 

 

Every single academic class I've taken over the last 3 years that required any kind of research paper begins on the first day with a warning not to cite wikipedia as a source, otherwise it's an automatic "F" for the paper. There have been several incidents of incredible information, and plagiarism posted on the site. A couple of years ago, their most prominent editor was exposed for being a fraud. Because there is controversy over the accuracy of information posted on wikipedia, it can't be considered credible to cite your information from there.

 

 

 

Reading your comments that you follow up with, you don't even sound sure of how wikipedia works. How are you calling me an idiot then? You are going to try and shoot me down with what - your best guesses? It used to be that ANYBODY could edit the articles. Now it's restricted to registered users. They also have editors to check over the articles. It can be a good site to look at for personal knowledge, but shouldn't be the only place you look.

 

 

 

I will concede that wikipedia is usually correct, but you should've taken the time to read what I had said instead of throwing insults. I said it isn't ALWAYS a reliable source. Sorry, but I'm going to have to say that what Jagex posts directly on the Runescape website is going to be a more credible source than wikipedia.

 

 

 

This has gone way off topic now, and I apologize to this week's authors. I'm done responding to ignorant posters.

 

 

 

What i meant was that wikipedia is as reliable as anything else you see on the internet, e.g. enclyopedia britannica. Runescape wiki and normal wikipedia is different. Wikipedia requires citations (and clearly tells you if it doesn't) and is reliable enough. Just out of curiosity, what is a "reliable" source then?

 

 

 

On topic, i don't understand what the author is trying to say about resting and sleeping bags

[quelmotz]

Please...I don't know why so many idiots think wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It is. Just because anyone can edit it doesn't mean its unreliable. Its constantly checked by "mods" that remove any false edits. I'm not sure on this, but maybe the edits have to go through a "mod" before getting into wikipedia.

 

 

 

I wasn't going to respond to the previous post, but since you felt like calling me an idiot, I have to say something. Honestly, I don't know who you think you are.

 

 

 

Every single academic class I've taken over the last 3 years that required any kind of research paper begins on the first day with a warning not to cite wikipedia as a source, otherwise it's an automatic "F" for the paper. There have been several incidents of incredible information, and plagiarism posted on the site. A couple of years ago, their most prominent editor was exposed for being a fraud. Because there is controversy over the accuracy of information posted on wikipedia, it can't be considered credible to cite your information from there.

 

 

 

Reading your comments that you follow up with, you don't even sound sure of how wikipedia works. How are you calling me an idiot then? You are going to try and shoot me down with what - your best guesses? It used to be that ANYBODY could edit the articles. Now it's restricted to registered users. They also have editors to check over the articles. It can be a good site to look at for personal knowledge, but shouldn't be the only place you look.

 

 

 

I will concede that wikipedia is usually correct, but you should've taken the time to read what I had said instead of throwing insults. I said it isn't ALWAYS a reliable source. Sorry, but I'm going to have to say that what Jagex posts directly on the Runescape website is going to be a more credible source than wikipedia.

 

 

 

This has gone way off topic now, and I apologize to this week's authors. I'm done responding to ignorant posters.

 

 

 

So just because the creators of wikipedia are more open and allow anyone to edit (you still have to cite references furthermore) it, its unreliable. Please. Wikipedia is more like a consolidation of information gotten from other sources. If you don't think its reliable, fine. The information will have a [5] or something behind it, and it will link to the respective references at the end. Those information with [citation needed] or no [] at all can't always be trusted, but those with a [] and the website reference cited is trusted are more than accurate 99% of the time.

 

 

 

I've used wikipedia hundreds of times, and I find it FAR FAR FAR more informative than most other websites. How can it be unreliable if Google Search always puts it in the front 5 or so posts? Most information on wikipedia is backed up by references to respected sources, and if you don't trust some information, you can always check out the references at the end to see if the referenced source is a respected source. Heck, you can just go the source itself to look if you're still not content.

[Foodfight13]

How can it be unreliable if Google Search always puts it in the front 5 or so posts?

Off topic:

 

Actually, if it's in the front five results, then it isn't necessarily reliable. One of the criteria Google uses for ranking the hits it finds for your query is popularity: how many times that page has been visited. Wikipedia is very popular, so that's why it usually comes up in the top five results. So you can't really say that it's reliable because it shows up in the first five searches on Google. Also some companies pay Google to make their websites show up in higher search results.

 

 

 

You also failed to notice that he said "Wikipedia isn't ALWAYS reliable." Hope you get it this time.

 

 

 

On topic: Thanks for the comments.

[Sir_Squab]

You know, I get the feeling that if everyone read each other's posts carefully and stopped jumping to conclusions, the wikipedia debate wouldn't be here because pretty much everyone is saying the same thing...

 

 

 

Wikipedia isn't always accurate.

 

Your wrong! It is almost always accurate.

 

Read my post. I said isn't ALWAYS accurate.

 

It's still accurate 99% of the time!

 

 

 

Sheesh....

 

 

 

ONTOPIC: I did like the articles :) As I said in a previous post, the "sleeping" article was rather informative.

[BloodShard]

How can it be unreliable if Google Search always puts it in the front 5 or so posts?

Off topic:

 

Also some companies pay Google to make their websites show up in higher search results.

 

 

 

Actually Google states that it is not affected by payment, meaning that they do not accept payment for moving a site higher. It actually is a credible source. Not always I agree with that but it can be very helpful

[Ravenkana]

How can it be unreliable if Google Search always puts it in the front 5 or so posts?

Off topic:

 

Also some companies pay Google to make their websites show up in higher search results.

 

 

 

Actually Google states that it is not affected by payment, meaning that they do not accept payment for moving a site higher. It actually is a credible source. Not always I agree with that but it can be very helpful

Also, Wikipedia is free and non-profit. Most, if not all, of their money goes to maintaining the site.

[quelmotz]

How can it be unreliable if Google Search always puts it in the front 5 or so posts?

Off topic:

 

Also some companies pay Google to make their websites show up in higher search results.

 

 

 

Actually Google states that it is not affected by payment, meaning that they do not accept payment for moving a site higher. It actually is a credible source. Not always I agree with that but it can be very helpful

Also, Wikipedia is free and non-profit. Most, if not all, of their money goes to maintaining the site.

 

 

 

Actually, both of you are right and wrong. Google DOES accept ad payment, and those websites that show up at the SIDE, but the top of the page are those who pay Google. However, those on the MAIN page do not pay Google anything.

 

 

 

Just to illustrate - or just go and search anything on Google and you'll see what I mean.

 

1. Website A l Website D

 

2. Website B l Website E

 

3. Website C l

 

...

 

 

 

Website A, B and C are popular, and they don't pay Google any money to be at the top of the list. Website D and E may or may not be popular, but they pay Google money, so Google puts them at the top right hand corner (Ads section)

[hihihi727]

How can it be unreliable if Google Search always puts it in the front 5 or so posts?

Off topic:

 

Also some companies pay Google to make their websites show up in higher search results.

 

 

 

Actually Google states that it is not affected by payment, meaning that they do not accept payment for moving a site higher. It actually is a credible source. Not always I agree with that but it can be very helpful

Also, Wikipedia is free and non-profit. Most, if not all, of their money goes to maintaining the site.

 

 

 

Actually, both of you are right and wrong. Google DOES accept ad payment, and those websites that show up at the SIDE, but the top of the page are those who pay Google. However, those on the MAIN page do not pay Google anything.

 

 

 

Just to illustrate - or just go and search anything on Google and you'll see what I mean.

 

1. Website A l Website D

 

2. Website B l Website E

 

3. Website C l

 

...

 

 

 

Website A, B and C are popular, and they don't pay Google any money to be at the top of the list. Website D and E may or may not be popular, but they pay Google money, so Google puts them at the top right hand corner (Ads section)

 

 

 

I think wikipedia is as reliable as anything else on the internet (reliable enough), but it coming up on google alot doesn't mean anything. I read in a book once that part of the way google works is by making popular sites show up more often- wikipedia is popular, but that doesn't necessary mean it is accurate. Also, citations aren't always reliable and not every statement is backed up with a citation or a "insert citation here". A survery showed that in the average scientific article, wikipedia had 4 errors while Encyclopedia Britannica had 3. My point before was that Wikipedia is almost as good as anything else you will find but even so its not really 100% accurate. (But chances are, it is just as, or more accurate than whatever other source you happened to use, so just because "anyone can edit it" doesn't mean it's far less reliable than whatever source you are using)

[Mdeoxys]

 

On topic, i don't understand what the author is trying to say about resting and sleeping bags

 

I think the main reason why you read the times is for fun and entertainment right? :

[ForsakenMage]

:? Hrm. Either people are just skimming through my article or the whole idea was completely missed somehow.

 

 

 

Rest and fatigue. Sleep. Think about it. :lol: