Efficiency

[Bladewing]

You implied that it's impossible to train them individually, therefore you are wrong. And there is something called a 'Comparison'. It means taking two things, and trying to illustrate a relationship between the two. Read, please.

 

You show me where I have implied this is impossible to do. I have implied it is not my preferred method where possible but at no point have I stated otherwise. Please ensure you quote me properly and not make things up to try and win your argument.

Not exactly sure where youre trying to go with the having fun is efficient. According to some being efficient comes first and the fun is negligible and therefore calling players noob/idiot and all other names . That was the point I was making in an earlier post, in case you missed it. Durrrr.

 

Secondly, your example may be true, but its also flawed. I could spin the 500 flax and use it for Fletch therefore am I being more efficient for training 2 skills and saving cash on bowstrings later? Or player A decides they want a fletch cape so therefore they buy the materials for 99, which is quick, but has no additional effects to Woodcutting or Crafting skills. Isnt that inefficient and, IMO, much less fun to do? Spending money isn't saving money if there's no real positive effect and you've a cape that you spent 'x' amount on but very little else to show for it.

 

I obtained 99 craft by making jewellery and battlestaves. I got everything myself and it had a positive effect on my thieving (gems), Mining and Smithing (gold), Crafting (orbs) and Mage (orb charging, alcing jewellery). So in the end I become more skilled and profit well. Most importantly, I had fun doing it.

underlined where you said it

[Saru Inc]

I have no problem with players being efficient, I have problems with those efficiency players pushing THEIR requirements onto other players. If I want to take my time Dungeoneering, and don't think that the Shadow Silk Hood is God's gift to Dungeoneering, doesn't make me bad at dung at all. I'd rather just ENJOY it.

 

Sometimes I do enjoy being efficient - but I always strive for a balance.

 

But then again, the fun lovers, per se, simply exact the same toll on us. We are ruining the spirit of the game, when we think they are. I strive to be as efficient as I possibly can. It gives me a sense of accomplishment, and that is why I play. It's merely an opinion on how to play the game, and yet the efficiency minded are always put as the bad guy.

 

 

Well, I'm sorry if I don't like the pistachio ice cream tastes, I will go the stockades now.

[CaJ]

Efficiency and how you do it are two different things. When you start to push them onto other people as I already see on these boards, that's practically forcing them to be out of their comfort zone.

 

During the past two years or so there has been a giant push by Jagex to force players to become more efficient with the way they train. Two of them I know of, Drumgun and Zarfot in particular, try to maximize being efficient in the shortest time possible and that is why they are tops in XP. As I recall by the older generation, I often ran into players such as Zezima and The Old Nite who actually did a bit of running around and doing various activities that weren't XP based (Castle Wars, Duel Arena, etc), neither did they have a mini-game hiscore. When I smelt ore at the furnace with just my default clothes, there is a message telling me, "If you had worn your Varrock armor you could of smelt 2 bars at the same time". That's Jagex persuading me to be a little more efficient with how I train, that I can do it quicker than I already can.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Hmmm lots of replies so I’ll do each one in turn:

 

@ Sonikku

I agree that people chat when they’re doing something, including myself using skype. But standing around in a bank talking is entirely up to the players. Who dictates what you do? Would you like me to dictate how you play your game? Of course not, you do your own thing and make your own decisions. If people want to sit around in a bank and chat, I say let them. If it doesn’t detract from the game for them then it cannot be wrong. Sorry, the manhood joke got lost there somewhere. Never mind.

 

I’m particularly impressed with your last post on the subject. A decent approach to understanding the word ‘debate’.

 

@Not_trolling and Bladewing

As you both are in each other’s pockets I’ll answer you both on the same subject. I think Blade is the organ grinder in this case so I’ll deal with his comments. You show me where I have categorically stated it’s ‘impossible’ to train individual skills exclusively. If I had said this how would I explain my 99 agility? Your underlined comments simply show I train differently and link the skills together so I’d rather do that where possible. Why would I want to fletch and no positive effects on other skills and waste a lot of money doing it? Just because you disagree with me doesn’t either of us wrong or right, its the way we do it. To be honest, I think you’re fixed in the mindset that skills must be trained independently that you only see one at a time? You have no concept of linking and if I’m so wrong then how come Jagex have started even started linking skills together, such as thieving and agility? You decide you train your skills as you so fit, and so do I. If I decide your way is not for me, I’ll view it as that so get used to it.

 

@Grimy_bunyip

I didn’t disregard it. There was no more to say on the matter. I’m not defining efficiency narrowly, I actually bother to give examples where others don’t. If you want to elaborate on this please do and enlighten us all instead of not bothering or giving the many definitions of efficiency and put it into some sort of context.

 

I have never said my own personal definition of efficiency is the "efficiency" of the runescape community. Where did I state this and where did I state that this is respective to the whole RS community? Every player has the right to choose I think is what you will find.

 

This is excellent. I had no idea that if you did things differently if would provoke such a reaction.

[Bladewing]

you are asserting that training skills together is intrinsically superior to training separately

 

which is false

 

you are right you never said it is impossible

 

--

 

the reaction (or at least mine) is not so much because what you do is different

 

it is that you assert that it is superior when it is likely not

 

it's like the guy in H&A who says that a DFS is better to buy than 85 herblore

[Assume Nothing]

Assumptions, implications and opinions stated as fact. I can see where this is going.

 

At least, define efficient before talking about efficiency.

[Michael]

Assumptions, implications and opinions stated as fact. I can see where this is going.

 

At least, define efficient before talking about efficiency.

 

"You're slower/lower level than me so therefore, you are inefficient."

[Bladewing]

what

 

since when did this become a debate over calling people noobs

 

that's what noob means, right?

[Ejaz01]

You can play the game however you want, as long as you enjoy it, and i like to play the game efficienty as i find playing runescape boring otherwise

[Assume Nothing]

what

 

since when did this become a debate over calling people noobs

 

that's what noob means, right?

 

They mad 'cause they ain't got no skill.

 

On topic; Seems like we're echoing each other's posts and arguing in circles, hmm. People play their own way, deal with it.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

I didn’t disregard it. There was no more to say on the matter. I’m not defining efficiency narrowly, I actually bother to give examples where others don’t. If you want to elaborate on this please do and enlighten us all instead of not bothering or giving the many definitions of efficiency and put it into some sort of context.

 

I have never said my own personal definition of efficiency is the "efficiency" of the runescape community. Where did I state this and where did I state that this is respective to the whole RS community? Every player has the right to choose I think is what you will find.

Firstly, I did not give a bunch of definitions of efficiency.

I gave one definition of efficiency, and I gave several examples of different subsets of efficiency, to show that efficiency is subjective.

I never gave more than one definition of efficiency.

 

If your own personal definition of efficiency isn't that of the runescape community, then your definition is trivial.

And since your argument is based entirely on your own personal definition of efficiency, your entire argument is trivialized as well.

 

no, you did not say it was respective to the RS community.

I was just assuming that it was, and that you were not talking about some imaginary community.

 

You made an obvious statement that X is Y.

But since X doesn't exist in the real world. Your statement is pointless.

Why don't we also say that dinosaur flatulence promotes global warming.

I mean, I'm sure it it would. If dinosaurs weren't extinct.

 

ultimately, your statement is true.

But is not relevant.

[stonewall337]

Hairy, I gave numerous examples of the more common uses for the term efficiency: Fastest Gp/hr, Fastest xp/hr, Best gp/xp/time ratio, as well as potential xp/hr or gp/hr (saved time, where a more expensive training method in the end saves enough time to justify the gp increase: think frost bones VS d bones.)

[Wheels]

I rarely take highest efficiency into consideration. For example, I got 99 Slayer without ever using a cannon, 99 Woodcutting with yews (note: pre-ivy), 99 Agility at advanced gnome, and prefer abyss Runecrafting as opposed to using graahks. That's all I can remember off of the top of my head. I'm sure there's more. Most of the most efficient methods aren't very fun to me, and if I'm not having fun, I have no motivation to play.

[Golvellius]

what

 

since when did this become a debate over calling people noobs

 

that's what noob means, right?

 

You would rather debate over choosing fun versus rank on a high scores table?

 

This thread goes on because some people will never learn the difference between effective and efficienct, because it would put a butthurt on their egos.

[Michael]

what

 

since when did this become a debate over calling people noobs

 

that's what noob means, right?

 

You would rather debate over choosing fun versus rank on a high scores table?

 

This thread goes on because some people will never learn the difference between effective and efficienct, because it would put a butthurt on their egos.

 

Some so called "efficient" training methods make me laugh, fast exp for a few minutes, till your wrist dies.

[Bladewing]

what

 

since when did this become a debate over calling people noobs

 

that's what noob means, right?

 

You would rather debate over choosing fun versus rank on a high scores table?

 

This thread goes on because some people will never learn the difference between effective and efficienct, because it would put a butthurt on their egos.

non sequitur

 

i was responding to someone defining "efficient as: 'you are slower/lower level than me'"

 

--

 

i do not play this game for ranks, i play it because i enjoy it - i think that applies to everyone here

 

prove to me that i do not fun; prove to me that how i play is not fun to me

[stonewall337]

what

 

since when did this become a debate over calling people noobs

 

that's what noob means, right?

 

You would rather debate over choosing fun versus rank on a high scores table?

 

This thread goes on because some people will never learn the difference between effective and efficienct, because it would put a butthurt on their egos.

Of course, effective is saving your money in a savings account until you retire, efficient is putting it into a Roth, or some other form of investment vehicle, so that it grows far more. The efficient get more done. In fact, anything which grants XP is, technically, effective. You are trying to save fact, and miserably failing, by your blatant misuse of terms.

 

You see, effective means: "Producing the intended or expected result". Sure, you can fletch yew longs for 99 fletching, it will get you there, but it will take far longer, and cost more, then fletching addy arrows.

 

Effective is arriving at your destination, efficient is getting there the fastest/cheapest/most enjoyable way, a ratio of all three of these.

[PereGrin]

what

 

since when did this become a debate over calling people noobs

 

that's what noob means, right?

 

You would rather debate over choosing fun versus rank on a high scores table?

 

This thread goes on because some people will never learn the difference between effective and efficienct, because it would put a butthurt on their egos.

Of course, effective is saving your money in a savings account until you retire, efficient is putting it into a Roth, or some other form of investment vehicle, so that it grows far more. The efficient get more done. In fact, anything which grants XP is, technically, effective. You are trying to save fact, and miserably failing, by your blatant misuse of terms.

 

You see, effective means: "Producing the intended or expected result". Sure, you can fletch yew longs for 99 fletching, it will get you there, but it will take far longer, and cost more, then fletching addy arrows.

 

Effective is arriving at your destination, efficient is getting there the fastest/cheapest/most enjoyable way, a ratio of all three of these.

 

And the the most enjoyable way to do something is a free variable, and cannot be accounted for in any calculations you may see. Which should be obvious, but some people refuse to see it.

[Guest jrhairychest]

@ bladewing

On the contrary, I didnt say training skills separately was superior. I said it works for ME and I view it as better for myself because any related skills also rise. Why should I do something I personally dont like to do, and come to detest each skill? You view training each skill individually by throwing money at it as efficient, correct? Well, I dont. It seems like an alien concept to you that I dont batter each skill individually and kill myself trying to do it. Why is this so?

 

@Grimy_bunyip

You gave several subsets so in fact trying to give multi versions of efficiency. Again you dont actually put any context to what youre saying. Michael has stated "You're slower/lower level than me so therefore, you are inefficient." so I am going off his context which Ive at least had a go at. Some relevant in-game context please.

 

@stonewall337

Agreed. You did and yes most view those things to be measured by efficiency.

[xpx]

what

 

since when did this become a debate over calling people noobs

 

that's what noob means, right?

 

You would rather debate over choosing fun versus rank on a high scores table?

 

This thread goes on because some people will never learn the difference between effective and efficienct, because it would put a butthurt on their egos.

Of course, effective is saving your money in a savings account until you retire, efficient is putting it into a Roth, or some other form of investment vehicle, so that it grows far more. The efficient get more done. In fact, anything which grants XP is, technically, effective. You are trying to save fact, and miserably failing, by your blatant misuse of terms.

 

You see, effective means: "Producing the intended or expected result". Sure, you can fletch yew longs for 99 fletching, it will get you there, but it will take far longer, and cost more, then fletching addy arrows.

 

Effective is arriving at your destination, efficient is getting there the fastest/cheapest/most enjoyable way, a ratio of all three of these.

 

And the the most enjoyable way to do something is a free variable, and cannot be accounted for in any calculations you may see. Which should be obvious, but some people refuse to see it.

Enjoyability isn't as black and white as that- the majority of people feel the taste of things and see colours in the same way, and if we assume something for this majority, it is generally true. Most people find the same things to be fun, so if efficiency is generally fun, we don't usually have to take it into account for calculations.

[PereGrin]

[hide]

what

 

since when did this become a debate over calling people noobs

 

that's what noob means, right?

 

You would rather debate over choosing fun versus rank on a high scores table?

 

This thread goes on because some people will never learn the difference between effective and efficienct, because it would put a butthurt on their egos.

Of course, effective is saving your money in a savings account until you retire, efficient is putting it into a Roth, or some other form of investment vehicle, so that it grows far more. The efficient get more done. In fact, anything which grants XP is, technically, effective. You are trying to save fact, and miserably failing, by your blatant misuse of terms.

 

You see, effective means: "Producing the intended or expected result". Sure, you can fletch yew longs for 99 fletching, it will get you there, but it will take far longer, and cost more, then fletching addy arrows.

 

Effective is arriving at your destination, efficient is getting there the fastest/cheapest/most enjoyable way, a ratio of all three of these.

 

And the the most enjoyable way to do something is a free variable, and cannot be accounted for in any calculations you may see. Which should be obvious, but some people refuse to see it.

[/hide]

Enjoyability isn't as black and white as that- the majority of people feel the taste of things and see colours in the same way, and if we assume something for this majority, it is generally true. Most people find the same things to be fun, so if efficiency is generally fun, we don't usually have to take it into account for calculations.

I am not sure I agree. Yes, people do generally find the same things fun. But these things are just general things. An example would be playing Runescape. I think that the majority of people posting on here find this fun. But comparing training method X with training method Y and determining which is more fun is not as easy. For example, I find graahking natures to be more fun then using the abyss. And someone else who recently posted on here prefers the abyss.

 

Also, trying to quantify fun is difficult. Saying: "you will have exactly 2.4x more fun training slayer while farming in between tasks then you will soloing TDs, which brings the net profit of slayer up to rival that of TDs."* does not make much sense. And fun is also affected by outside forces, such as internet connection, health, and attitude. For example, Dungeoneering with friends, on a good world, may indeed be enjoyable. But, dungeoneering on w117, over dial up, with a food hog team, while you are suffering from food poisening in real life, is perhaps not so much fun. But it is theoretically possible to achieve the same xp/hr rate in either dungeoneering circumstance. One is just more advisable then the other.

 

And, rather then say "efficiency is generally fun" I would perhaps say "fun is generally efficient" Because if you are having fun doing X action, then you are using your time more efficiently then doing Y action, which you detest. Now sometimes the result of doing something you detest is worth it. Hence why I jumped ~600k woodcutting ranks in about 18 hours. Finishing Grim Tales outweighed the detest I have for training woodcutting. Normally though, training woodcutting is inefficient for me, because I hate it that much. Some people seem to enjoy woodcutting (e.g. PuppyKing/Minergoo), and for them it is an efficient way to use their time.

 

Therefore, I do not think that fun can be added into calculations because it is unquantifiable, and depends on circumstances outside of what you are calculating. Also, if you are calculating anything, it tends to be very specific, so trying to apply a generality into a specific case does not work out. Calculations are not normally done to find out what is generally better to do,b ut rather they are done to find out exactly how much better one thing is then another.

 

 

tl;dr version: Fun is not quantifiable, and can change depending on outside forces. Also, fun is a general term, and calculations are for finding specific details, not what is "generally" better.

 

 

 

*Slayer and TDs were used purely for example purposes, and not because TDs actually do make 2.4x more then slayer+farming

[Youmu]

Heh, sorry for the late response. Got caught up in some school stuff, so I had no time to post lolz.

 

@ Sonikku

I agree that people chat when theyre doing something, including myself using skype. But standing around in a bank talking is entirely up to the players. Who dictates what you do? Would you like me to dictate how you play your game? Of course not, you do your own thing and make your own decisions. If people want to sit around in a bank and chat, I say let them. If it doesnt detract from the game for them then it cannot be wrong. Sorry, the manhood joke got lost there somewhere. Never mind.

 

Im particularly impressed with your last post on the subject. A decent approach to understanding the word debate.

Well, ok that's a given. If they want to play the game they want, I say let them do what they want. I won't mind their business.

 

However, my point is, during the time you sit at a bank, you are losing out time that could be spent on doing other stuff, like skill training. Heck if you're sitting in a bank, it's a good opportunity to train bank skills like fletch, herb, and magic. I'm not saying they SHOULD be doing that (some people can't even handle chatting and bank skilling at the same time), but since this thread is about efficiency, that's what they should have been doing. I could go on with opportunity cost, but that's way too complicated for me to explain, and I think there's a guide on it already.

 

@ Peregrin: When most people talk about what method is better to do, they always assume you have the best conditions at your current levels. That is why nobody really takes enjoyability into account when making efficiency-practicality calculations - they assume you will enjoy said methods. And of course, fun is a qualitative factor, and with qualitative factors come subjectiveness. If TDs drive somebody crazy, does that make TDs a bad method? Of course not, it's just saying you don't like it, so you choose not to do it therefore you THINK it's inferior. That's what starts up all these debates - most, if not all people, factor in personal experience for their support, which ends up in a lot of multiple-page wars (like this thread, for instance).

[SacredFlam3s]

i just do it however i want to, and i normally find wasting a lot of money to be quicker not fun....

 

only two tasks i cannon are kalphites and bloodvelds cause i hate both of them

[Grimy_Bunyip]

@Grimy_bunyip

You gave several subsets so in fact trying to give multi versions of efficiency. Again you dont actually put any context to what youre saying. Michael has stated "You're slower/lower level than me so therefore, you are inefficient." so I am going off his context which Ive at least had a go at. Some relevant in-game context please.

I'm not sure why you want a specific example so badly but here's one anyways:

 

for example, lets say this player's income is 3 mil gp/hour

but hypothetically the player already has all the buyables, and still has a lot of money left over.

and his goals are only to max, not to get 200 mil xp in all skills

 

typically efficiency calculations would stipulate that he should should keep on training his skills at 3 mil gp/hour.

but in such a scenario, he should actually value his time higher than 3 mil gp/hour because of his overabundance of money and lack of goals.

 

 

it's not relevant to what I'm saying at any rate.

My point is that almost no supporter of efficiency defines efficiency as the "purely xp/gp/time" version of efficiency you're proposing.

and it's really pointless to say that such a form of efficiency is bad, if nobody thinks it's good in the first place.

[Assume Nothing]

Dead argument is dead. Efficiency is the best way to play, for you. Just accept it.