200M in all Skills

[Trepidation]

Afkability is part of efficiency. So is fun. Don't forget that.

 

Very true

[Yuz]

Really enjoyed reading the update on the top fifteen players. You know what they say - if you can't beat them, stalk them!

[Quyneax]

Afkability is part of efficiency. So is fun. Don't forget that.

It's really inconvenient that 'efficiency' is used both in the narrow sense (e.g. fastest way to get account from A to B) and the personal sense (e.g. most preffered way for player X to get account from A to B).

[tintin113]

Afkability is part of efficiency. So is fun. Don't forget that.

It's really inconvenient that 'efficiency' is used both in the narrow sense (e.g. fastest way to get account from A to B) and the personal sense (e.g. most preffered way for player X to get account from A to B).

 

True, but there is an almost defining ambiguity in what 'efficient' means. In that it is maximising output while minimising input, the ambiguity here comes in terms of what constitutes the output. For example, while Dragonseance's main method of reaching his Runescape goals is through being efficient in playing the game, it can't be forgotten that in terms of the competitive aspect of Runescape, efficiency comes down to amount of xp/real time passed, rather than simply xp/time played. It also can't be forgotten that Runescape isn't all he (or anybody) wants from life, and so in order to increase his 'life efficiency' (that includes his current Runescape goal,) enjoyment has to be factored in too.

 

I suppose that when talking on a Runescape forum, looking at 'efficiency' from a Runescape point of view, it can occassionally confuse people when someone talks of efficiency in a way that assumes 'life efficiency' in combination with Runescape efficiency, but it's far too wordy to say "he's achieving all of his life goals in the most efficient manner" rather than "he's being efficient."

[Fallstar]

Jake is back.

[essiw]

Sigh, not this debate again.

Firstly we are talking about a word "efficiency".

Most people talk about efficiency as if it only means "most efficient" which no-one in runescape can follow for to long (most skills only for a few minutes, maybe agility would be the only good example where it is possible to not lose ticks).

Then people talk about efficiency as if it only means "more efficient" which means that what ever you are doing is better then doing something else is "efficient" so in this term ask-ing is (more) efficient (then logging out).

 

I think that the term "efficiency" is both ways of the examples (and maybe many more) i said above.

[Stev]

Afkability is part of efficiency. So is fun. Don't forget that.

 

Very true

I disagree. I believe efficiency is soley fastest XP/GP/what ever the player is aimed toward. For a lot of skills, the most efficient method of training is the least AFKable and requires the most thought and concentration. Sure some of these methods can be fun, but something being AFKable and fun doesn't in the slightest mean it's efficient.

 

IMO anyways.

[Hedgehog]

Afkability is part of efficiency. So is fun. Don't forget that.

It's really inconvenient that 'efficiency' is used both in the narrow sense (e.g. fastest way to get account from A to B) and the personal sense (e.g. most preffered way for player X to get account from A to B).

Usually the narrow sense is used because it's actually calculable. If there were a way to factor in fun, I'm sure we'd do it, but it's far too subjective.

[Platinum_Myr]

Fun is subjective, which leads to difficulty in calculating. When talking about the game, it is not really relevant to factor in circumstance outside the game. Efficiency in terms of gp, xp, or time is possible to calculate. Other forms of maximising input/output are not easy to calculate, therefor are less relevant when discussing efficiency. But there *is* something to be said for saying that doing something AFK is more efficient than logging out.

[12pure34]

Can we get 2 different definitions.

 

E.g. for the absolute max exp/time --> Experience Efficiency

And insert subjective factors --> Perceptual Efficiency

 

It would solve most of these arguments ;) Just use the terms correctly.

 

On topic, very interested in how extreme the jumps during the BXW will become. A few guys in top 10 doing 20-40m weekends?

[Poppe]

Hey look its this discussion again XD. I'm about to write a therom that every 100 pages of this thread there must be atleast one discussion of efficiency and what it means, there must be atleast one argument about nolifing, and there must be atleast 1 full page of posts deleted because of the two previous requirements. :shades:

 

(Sarcasm to some degree, and honestly serious to some degree :P)

 

Can we get 2 different definitions.

 

E.g. for the absolute max exp/time --> Experience Efficiency

And insert subjective factors --> Perceptual Efficiency

 

It would solve most of these arguments ;) Just use the terms correctly.

 

On topic, very interested in how extreme the jumps during the BXW will become. A few guys in top 10 doing 20-40m weekends?

 

I like this alot, but I say we introduce a new word for perceptual efficiency. I personally see it as practicability or something being practical. Efficiency is maximum experience per hour while keeping cost reasonable (My personal glass sealing on this is 10gp per exp, but most other peoples is upwards of 30 gp/exp. So their is personal limits placed on efficiency or their be a ton of demonic thrones being made). Practical is training in a relatively efficient manor that allows for other things to be accomplished. Such as studying, having fun, making money, or not having to pay intense attention.

 

I think (and by saying this I'm well open to be proven wrong) that we all have those two senses about Runescape styles. Why not just use two different words?

 

---

 

To further my point, lets revisit logging out vs chopping ivy

 

The efficient thing to do is to log out and only play when you can give 100% attention and strive to have the highest experience per hour, ect ect

 

Practical is using time to get the most experience possible, not necessarily the most experience.

 

So say its Sunday and you have a test Monday. The efficient method is logging out, studying say 3 hours at a time, and taking a break for an hour each time and playing super efficient, then repeating for the whole day.

 

Practical is picking something you can multitask and get experience while still not failing your test.

 

Which method gets more experience at the end of the day? It all depends but often the practical path will. Which path will have the best experience per hour? Almost without a doubt the efficient path.

 

So pick your path

 

---

 

Slightly more ontopic (even though I'm no where near the top ranks I do plan to blow past a bil experience next weekend XD), personally I plan about a 30mil weekend for myself for bonus weekend. I'd like to grab a top 5 spot in the event fletching records (I have no shot at #1 since I don't have 2 million broad arrows banked, nor will I likely be able to pull a 50 hour, three day weekend). But I will aim for around 10mil fletching experience. Then I hope to be able to cash in all my charms since I got 99 summoning basically for around 17mil more summoning experience.

 

Suomi plans to craft which I expect huge gains out of and I'm curious to watch Jake. Will he power through wc or choose to spend some cash?

[Thus]

Is there a point to this thread anyway? when someone gets 200m in all skills, it will happen. No big deal.

[goro]

Really enjoyed reading the update on the top fifteen players. You know what they say - if you can't beat them, stalk them!

That's exactly what this thread is about, isn't it? :grin: But seriously... I've got an excuse to do this. :D As a software engineering student and a future game designer, I read about the games I play much more than I actually play them. Whether it's a wiki of the game, an average troll thread on the official forum or threads like this, which debate the end game gameplay points...

 

Anyway...thanks to everyone for the kind words. I'll try to do another update next sunday (if I'm at 1.1x multiplier by the time, I'll be probably be doing something afkable anyway :-)) or monday...

[Lord Paul]

Hey look its this discussion again XD. I'm about to write a therom that every 100 pages of this thread there must be atleast one discussion of efficiency and what it means, there must be atleast one argument about nolifing, and there must be atleast 1 full page of posts deleted because of the two previous requirements. :shades:

 

Well hopefully it doesn't come to this. The discussion is going quite well so far, and as long as we don't fling mud at each other, it's nice to have something to discuss. :thumbup:

[Poppe]

A special edition Monday update might be good :P. That way you aren't forcing yourself to right it on you're multiplier (that really sounds weird in my head but think the meaning comes across rofl) and that way all the top players can finish out their bonus experience and we can see where everything stands. You're call though as the editor and you did do a good job on it ^_^

 

Edit to Paul, I do agree that it is nice to have a bit something to keep this thread moving as the true question is well answered and sometimes seems this thread is slow. Since, well what do we have to say or discuss with a #1 with a near 700mil lead? Hope it didn't come across that I was annoyed at the conversation, more entertained that these questions pop up pretty regularly :P

[enfield]

Can we get 2 different definitions.

 

E.g. for the absolute max exp/time --> Experience Efficiency

And insert subjective factors --> Perceptual Efficiency

 

It would solve most of these arguments Just use the terms correctly.

 

I strongly support this effort ^

 

Now, here is a rather nice article on DISPUTING DEFINITIONS, which highlights how much of everyone's time doing so might save:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/

[spoiler=or read it here]

I have watched more than one conversation—even conversations supposedly about cognitive science—go the route of disputing over definitions. Taking the classic example to be "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?", the dispute often follows a course like this:

 

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

 

Albert: "Of course it does. What kind of silly question is that? Every time I've listened to a tree fall, it made a sound, so I'll guess that other trees falling also make sounds. I don't believe the world changes around when I'm not looking."

 

Barry: "Wait a minute. If no one hears it, how can it be a sound?"

 

In this example, Barry is arguing with Albert because of a genuinely different intuition about what constitutes a sound. But there's more than one way the Standard Dispute can start. Barry could have a motive for rejecting Albert's conclusion. Or Barry could be a skeptic who, upon hearing Albert's argument, reflexively scrutinized it for possible logical flaws; and then, on finding a counterargument, automatically accepted it without applying a second layer of search for a counter-counterargument; thereby arguing himself into the opposite position. This doesn't require that Barry's prior intuition—the intuition Barry would have had, if we'd asked him before Albert spoke—have differed from Albert's.

 

Well, if Barry didn't have a differing intuition before, he sure has one now.

 

 

Albert: "What do you mean, there's no sound? The tree's roots snap, the trunk comes crashing down and hits the ground. This generates vibrations that travel through the ground and the air. That's where the energy of the fall goes, into heat and sound. Are you saying that if people leave the forest, the tree violates conservation of energy?"

 

Barry: "But no one hears anything. If there are no humans in the forest, or, for the sake of argument, anything else with a complex nervous system capable of 'hearing', then no one hears a sound."

 

Albert and Barry recruit arguments that feel like support for their respective positions, describing in more detail the thoughts that caused their "sound"-detectors to fire or stay silent. But so far the conversation has still focused on the forest, rather than definitions. And note that they don't actually disagree on anything that happens in the forest.

 

Albert: "This is the dumbest argument I've ever been in. You're a niddlewicking fallumphing pickleplumber."

 

Barry: "Yeah? Well, you look like your face caught on fire and someone put it out with a shovel."

 

Insult has been proffered and accepted; now neither party can back down without losing face. Technically, this isn't part of the argument, as rationalists account such things; but it's such an important part of the Standard Dispute that I'm including it anyway.

 

Albert: "The tree produces acoustic vibrations. By definition, that is a sound."

 

Barry: "No one hears anything. By definition, that is not a sound."

 

The argument starts shifting to focus on definitions. Whenever you feel tempted to say the words "by definition" in an argument that is not literally about pure mathematics, remember that anything which is true "by definition" is true in all possible worlds, and so observing its truth can never constrain which world you live in.

 

Albert: "My computer's microphone can record a sound without anyone being around to hear it, store it as a file, and it's called a 'sound file'. And what's stored in the file is the pattern of vibrations in air, not the pattern of neural firings in anyone's brain. 'Sound' means a pattern of vibrations."

 

Albert deploys an argument that feels like support for the word "sound" having a particular meaning. This is a different kind of question from whether acoustic vibrations take place in a forest—but the shift usually passes unnoticed.

 

Barry: "Oh, yeah? Let's just see if the dictionary agrees with you."

 

There's a lot of things I could be curious about in the falling-tree scenario. I could go into the forest and look at trees, or learn how to derive the wave equation for changes of air pressure, or examine the anatomy of an ear, or study the neuroanatomy of the auditory cortex. Instead of doing any of these things, I am to consult a dictionary, apparently. Why? Are the editors of the dictionary expert botanists, expert physicists, expert neuroscientists? Looking in an encyclopedia might make sense, but why a dictionary?

 

Albert: "Hah! Definition 2c in Merriam-Webster: 'Sound: Mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air).'"

 

Barry: "Hah! Definition 2b in Merriam-Webster: 'Sound: The sensation perceived by the sense of hearing.'"

 

Albert and Barry, chorus: "Consarned dictionary! This doesn't help at all!"

 

Dictionary editors are historians of usage, not legislators of language. Dictionary editors find words in current usage, then write down the words next to (a small part of) what people seem to mean by them. If there's more than one usage, the editors write down more than one definition.

 

Albert: "Look, suppose that I left a microphone in the forest and recorded the pattern of the acoustic vibrations of the tree falling. If I played that back to someone, they'd call it a 'sound'! That's the common usage! Don't go around making up your own wacky definitions!"

 

Barry: "One, I can define a word any way I like so long as I use it consistently. Two, the meaning I gave was in the dictionary. Three, who gave you the right to decide what is or isn't common usage?"

 

There's quite a lot of rationality errors in the Standard Dispute. Some of them I've already covered, and some of them I've yet to cover; likewise the remedies.

 

But for now, I would just like to point out—in a mournful sort of way—that Albert and Barry seem to agree on virtually every question of what is actually going on inside the forest, and yet it doesn't seem to generate any feeling of agreement.

 

Arguing about definitions is a garden path; people wouldn't go down the path if they saw at the outset where it led. If you asked Albert (Barry) why he's still arguing, he'd probably say something like: "Barry (Albert) is trying to sneak in his own definition of 'sound', the scurvey scoundrel, to support his ridiculous point; and I'm here to defend the standard definition."

 

But suppose I went back in time to before the start of the argument:

 

(Eliezer appears from nowhere in a peculiar conveyance that looks just like the time machine from the original 'The Time Machine' movie.)

 

Barry: "Gosh! A time traveler!"

 

Eliezer: "I am a traveler from the future! Hear my words! I have traveled far into the past—around fifteen minutes—"

 

Albert: "Fifteen minutes?"

 

Eliezer: "—to bring you this message!"

 

(There is a pause of mixed confusion and expectancy.)

 

Eliezer: "Do you think that 'sound' should be defined to require both acoustic vibrations (pressure waves in air) and also auditory experiences (someone to listen to the sound), or should 'sound' be defined as meaning only acoustic vibrations, or only auditory experience?"

 

Barry: "You went back in time to ask us that?"

 

Eliezer: "My purposes are my own! Answer!"

 

Albert: "Well... I don't see why it would matter. You can pick any definition so long as you use it consistently."

 

Barry: "Flip a coin. Er, flip a coin twice."

 

Eliezer: "Personally I'd say that if the issue arises, both sides should switch to describing the event in unambiguous lower-level constituents, like acoustic vibrations or auditory experiences. Or each side could designate a new word, like 'alberzle' and 'bargulum', to use for what they respectively used to call 'sound'; and then both sides could use the new words consistently. That way neither side has to back down or lose face, but they can still communicate. And of course you should try to keep track, at all times, of some testable proposition that the argument is actually about. Does that sound right to you?"

 

Albert: "I guess..."

 

Barry: "Why are we talking about this?"

 

Eliezer: "To preserve your friendship against a contingency you will, now, never know. For the future has already changed!"

 

(Eliezer and the machine vanish in a puff of smoke.)

 

Barry: "Where were we again?"

 

Albert: "Oh, yeah: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"

 

Barry: "It makes an alberzle but not a bargulum. What's the next question?"

 

This remedy doesn't destroy every dispute over categorizations. But it destroys a substantial fraction.

 

[asfcjfdyitfhglh]

Why doesn't a mod just edit the definition of efficiency into the original post like the top 15s.

[Trey]

OH, we're trying to trying to find the value of fun again.

 

Bye.

[Pinata]

I'd have to agree with the posters saying that efficiency should be purely defined as xp/hr factored with gp being factored in also. Ofc the gp part is sketchy as there's very minimal time flipping/merching, while camping frosts/nex takes a bit of time or someone could get donations or lucky at staking. I wouldn't say we should completely factor out the time making gp, because that would make methods like making demon thrones to 200m acceptable.

 

However, I don't think fun should be an added factor. Look how many people said camping cave crawlers would never be done by anyone. S U O M I spent a good 6 months at them, and other top ranks were spending time there as well. Ofc its inefficient now because of the effigy update.

 

I think for example it would be ok to say, "Dragonseance is a good x months away to 200m woodcutting doing Ivy", even though in the time calc it should have the most reasonable method which would be splitting pines with adze or whatever is the best method time wise atm.

 

Woodcutting Ivy while doing school work would be more xp than not doing it, however its still not efficient in terms of Rs, because in that case you wouldn't be doing your hw but only focusing on rs. That shouldn't give anyone the right for bashing people for being ineffecient, but I'd still say efficiency in Rs should always be based off xp/hr and gp/hr should be based off an publicly accepted value.

 

Example

 

Player A and player B start rs on the same day, both goal is 99 woodcutting.

 

Player A decides to do Ivy so he can focus on school work and gets 99 woodcutting in a week.

Total Days played: 4 (not accurate to actual ivy just pretending)

 

Player B decides to do a method less afk than Ivy and faster xp/hr, but only plays when he has the time. It takes him 2 months to get 99 woodcutting.

Total Days played: 3.

 

Imo player B would be more effecient although he got 99wc at a later date, however player A gets to reap the benefits first.

[Lord Paul]

Why doesn't a mod just edit the definition of efficiency into the original post like the top 15s.

 

I really don't see a reason to do this. Care to elaborate? As I said before, the discussion is good as long as it stays clean, since it is both on topic and gives some life to this thread.

[Hedgehog]

When it comes down to it, I think there's only one definition of efficiency.

 

Efficiency = receiving the most output from the least input.

 

Outputs: Xp, enjoyment

Inputs: Time, effort

 

I think this part is undeniable, you put in time and effort in order to get xp and enjoyment.

 

The trouble comes when you try to define any of those four values.

 

Xp is easily defined, but time isn't. Do you only count in-game time, or do you count all 24 hours of the day?

 

Effort is also hard to define: is it the same as apm? So something like ivy requires less effort than teaks or arctic pines? But then again, low alching teaks doesn't require much attention, despite requiring 100 times as many actions as ivy. Then there's people like Jebrim, who put in a ton of effort to get, what, a 1% boost in xp? Is that efficient?

 

Enjoyment is the hardest to measure, and can be used to justify anything: I'll go chop yews for 200m wc because I find it more fun than cutting arctic pines. If fun didn't exist, that person would be brutally murdered by most metagamers. But the fact is, it's efficient because it's fun. Or is it? Is there such a thing as marginal fun? Can you say something like, is the amount of enjoyment you gain from yews equal to or greater than the 100k xp/hour that you lose? I'd say that's up to the individual to decide, but I'd like to hear other's opinions.

 

And this is why we have so many arguments about efficiency: it's so complicated and there's so many variables. But for this thread, I propose that we ignore enjoyment altogether, as the top players are expected to enjoy the most effective methods. This will ease our calculations as well. If one of the top players doesn't enjoy a certain method, it will simply be blacklisted. Time will be defined as total time, i.e. all 24 hours in the day, since a player can average 1m xp/hour but only play an hour a day, but will get nowhere in the race to 200m all. Players who play more will be rewarded for it by reaching their goal first. Ergo, chopping ivy instead of logging out would be efficient (unless the ivy distracts them, causing them to fail out of college and end up living on the streets without a computer, or something). I'm not sure how we would do effort, so, again, I'd like to hear some opinions.

[Platinum_Myr]

I agree with hedgehog. We shouldn't calculate enjoyment because that leads to an impossibly complex issue.

 

Counting time played vs real time is an issue. Time played should be used for determining how efficient a method is, but real time should be used for determining how efficient a player is being overall. Using real time for a method doesn't make sense.

 

However, APM is useful, as it GP/hr you can obtian. Since it is fairly easy to factor in money by simply saying "If Method A costs 3x as much as Method B but takes half the time, and during that remaining time you would have been doing Method B, you can earn more gp than it cost you to do Method A over Method B, then Method A is more efficient" That is a definite, objective way to determine whether A is better than B, as long as you know how much gp a player can make during the time "regained" by doing the faster more expensive method.

 

Real time is difficult, because it also factors into someone's "fun".

[ProtoRob]

Hedgehog has the best definition of efficiency that I've read. My 10cents is that the term efficient is almost solely used as a comparative adjective. i.e. "A is more efficient than B." If there is only one method of training, and no variation in xp rates, there's nothing to discuss. This is why I'd say that cutting ivy is somewhat efficient.

 

If you think about it on a timeline, and you split it into free time, occupied time, sleep etc.

- In your free time, you do arctic pines, you get the highest rates of exp you possibly can, you maximise efficiency.

- In your occupied time, you are occupied (obvious statement is obvious). Whether it be as a result of employment, education, or just a movie/tv show you want to watch. In terms of RuneScape, you maximise your efficiency by choosing the best activity that fits in with your schedule. It's like saying someone is being inefficient for not catching draconic Jadinkos when they're level 10 hunter. They can't catch them, because things prevent them from doing so. For the level 10 hunter, it's their hunting experience, for the college student/employee/film buff, they're being as efficient as they possibly can.

- Whilst you sleep, leave offers in for merches meaning you have more money when you wake up, and can train using more expensive methods.

 

Welcome to efficiency 101.

[Hedgehog]

The problem I have with APM is that it's Input/Input. All APM does is unlock certain methods; you can't do x method if you can't click quickly or accurately enough. Xp/action would be a much better unit, for calculating pure efficiency. Xp/A shows how much you receive divided by the amount of effort put it. However, that too is flawed because actions aren't the only way to measure effort, and high Xp/A methods are often low Xp/hour.

 

There are also only two things you can do with your time: play RuneScape and not play RuneScape. If your goal is to achieve 5b xp, it's (as sad as this sounds) efficient to maximize time playing RuneScape. This is because the time spent not playing doesn't help you achieve your goal. Obviously, you can't play RuneScape 24/7, but there are ways to maximize how much you play. You can, for example, chop ivy while studying or doing homework. Doing so gains you 70k xp for every hour spent studying over the alternative, which would be logging out. I think we can all agree that doing so is efficient use of time.

[Pinata]

My opinion on real time vs game time is that real time would best be used for "first to 200m in all skills", and in-game time would be used for 200m in all skills. I personally don't like to add rl factors into efficiency calculations, and keep it purely rs based. Like I said before it would be more efficient to ignore school, and focus on RS non afk fastest methods, but ofc I would highly not recommend that.

 

People just need to remember that rs is purely meant for entertainment purposes and should never get in the way of rl things and like people often say you should maximize fun. Some people may judge you on your training methods, but in the end it should just be about you having fun with your friends on the game, and who cares what some e-troll thinks.