Efficiency

[Assume Nothing]

They are not crashing because they are an ass, rather they are an ass because they crash.(and this makes all the difference)

Thanks for summarizing my posts.

 

I'm sorry if I don't agree with the ideal of making other people's experience less enjoyable when possible for the sake of my own gain. Regardless of the reason, I still think you're an Ass when you crash were it isn't needed.

I'm not denying that you are being an ass if you crash, rather that it's justified if it saves time(and there are alot of situations where it doesn't) and the fact that there is no guarantee the person will not do the same to you. If i get guaranteed not to be crashed while training slayer(both nonmulty and multy) i'd never want to crash anyone, but since everyone is being an ass anyway(and particularly the low levels in nonmulty), why bother.

Well, I think Crashing makes a healthy RuneScape economy.

 

The Social Cost (cost for the whole economy) of crashing is tiny, economically. One person gets less Xp/h, or obtains less raw materials per time. However, in the sense of obtaining goods, the Social Benefit would be more efficient use of a spot, therefore more raw materials available for the Economy than not crashing the spot. I think the Social Benefits would outweigh the Social Costs, and therefore crashing = good.

 

Someone prove me wrong.

[lordkafei]

Well, I think Crashing makes a healthy RuneScape economy.

 

The Social Cost (cost for the whole economy) of crashing is tiny, economically. One person gets less Xp/h, or obtains less raw materials per time. However, in the sense of obtaining goods, the Social Benefit would be more efficient use of a spot, therefore more raw materials available for the Economy than not crashing the spot. I think the Social Benefits would outweigh the Social Costs, and therefore crashing = good.

 

Someone prove me wrong.

 

So you are justifying anti-social behavior by claiming an overall social benefit...?

 

/cues up the Alanis Morissette music

[Obtaurian]

Well, I think Crashing makes a healthy RuneScape economy.

 

The Social Cost (cost for the whole economy) of crashing is tiny, economically. One person gets less Xp/h, or obtains less raw materials per time. However, in the sense of obtaining goods, the Social Benefit would be more efficient use of a spot, therefore more raw materials available for the Economy than not crashing the spot. I think the Social Benefits would outweigh the Social Costs, and therefore crashing = good.

 

Someone prove me wrong.

 

This is true. It's more beneficial for the community for a maxed player to solo Graar than a 120 with a BGS, thus the crasher is actually the good guy.

 

EDIT:

 

So you are justifying anti-social behavior by claiming an overall social benefit...?

 

I'm not following you. Are you implying that being competitive in a competitive game is . . . bad? Are rugby players bad people because they enjoy tackling other rugby players?

[stonewall337]

Well, I think Crashing makes a healthy RuneScape economy.

 

The Social Cost (cost for the whole economy) of crashing is tiny, economically. One person gets less Xp/h, or obtains less raw materials per time. However, in the sense of obtaining goods, the Social Benefit would be more efficient use of a spot, therefore more raw materials available for the Economy than not crashing the spot. I think the Social Benefits would outweigh the Social Costs, and therefore crashing = good.

 

Someone prove me wrong.

 

So you are justifying anti-social behavior by claiming an overall social benefit...?

 

/cues up the Alanis Morissette music

 

 

He's also asking you to prove that it IS really anti-social. He is saying social as in cost on economy, not as in hurting someone's feelings because they have a misplaced sense of "first come first serve" ownership.

 

Guess I better stop killing people in PvP, or using thermal to pick off campers in COD

[homer205]

Well, I think Crashing makes a healthy RuneScape economy.

 

The Social Cost (cost for the whole economy) of crashing is tiny, economically. One person gets less Xp/h, or obtains less raw materials per time. However, in the sense of obtaining goods, the Social Benefit would be more efficient use of a spot, therefore more raw materials available for the Economy than not crashing the spot. I think the Social Benefits would outweigh the Social Costs, and therefore crashing = good.

 

Someone prove me wrong.

 

In most cases you're right, the spots which are crowded on every world, graardor as mentioned in a different post. When it's something which isn't crowded however, say pretty much everything in kuradels dungeon for example, they're not increasing the availability of materials to the economy. Because if you're running out of spawns, which results in less kills and less drops, when one person could hop and then you could both kill more which lead to a greater introduction of materials. I don't think I phrased this very well so I hope someone can improve or you undertand me anyway.

[Vulxai]

Guess I better stop killing people in PvP, or using thermal to pick off campers in COD

 

...what does that have ANYTHING to do with it? PvP isn't first come first serve at all, it's kill each other. Same with COD, that had nothing to do with crashing, at all!

 

Now, I don't like crashers, I think the idea that it helps the economy has some merit, however to me, this is a game. We should all be able to have fun, however the crashers don't see it like that. That's just my point, crashing is rude. I don't do it, nor do I respect those who do.

[stonewall337]

Well, I think Crashing makes a healthy RuneScape economy.

 

The Social Cost (cost for the whole economy) of crashing is tiny, economically. One person gets less Xp/h, or obtains less raw materials per time. However, in the sense of obtaining goods, the Social Benefit would be more efficient use of a spot, therefore more raw materials available for the Economy than not crashing the spot. I think the Social Benefits would outweigh the Social Costs, and therefore crashing = good.

 

Someone prove me wrong.

 

In most cases you're right, the spots which are crowded on every world, graardor as mentioned in a different post. When it's something which isn't crowded however, say pretty much everything in kuradels dungeon for example, they're not increasing the availability of materials to the economy. Because if you're running out of spawns, which results in less kills and less drops, when one person could hop and then you could both kill more which lead to a greater introduction of materials. I don't think I phrased this very well so I hope someone can improve or you undertand me anyway.

 

He's talking about crowded places, mainly bosses etc. Places like K Dung are single combat, so its not only hard to crash, but not worth it. That's where I just hop, to speed myself up.

 

@vul. It has everything to do with it. Rs is a COMPETITIVE game. If you aren't competitive enough to either make me hop, or want to hop, then I can take your world. The whole point is COMPETITIVE.

[Troacctid]

PvP isn't first come first serve at all, it's kill each other.

PvM isn't first come first serve either.

[Vulxai]

Well, I think Crashing makes a healthy RuneScape economy.

 

The Social Cost (cost for the whole economy) of crashing is tiny, economically. One person gets less Xp/h, or obtains less raw materials per time. However, in the sense of obtaining goods, the Social Benefit would be more efficient use of a spot, therefore more raw materials available for the Economy than not crashing the spot. I think the Social Benefits would outweigh the Social Costs, and therefore crashing = good.

 

Someone prove me wrong.

 

In most cases you're right, the spots which are crowded on every world, graardor as mentioned in a different post. When it's something which isn't crowded however, say pretty much everything in kuradels dungeon for example, they're not increasing the availability of materials to the economy. Because if you're running out of spawns, which results in less kills and less drops, when one person could hop and then you could both kill more which lead to a greater introduction of materials. I don't think I phrased this very well so I hope someone can improve or you undertand me anyway.

@vul. It has everything to do with it. Rs is a COMPETITIVE game. If you aren't competitive enough to either make me hop, or want to hop, then I can take your world. The whole point is COMPETITIVE.

 

You're two examples have nothing to do with crashing. How can I be competitive when I'm lower level and don't have the same gear? That's my point, I'm in it for fun, and I can't have fun when guys like you come and take my kills. You're making me hop, because you're ego tells you you're better than me, so you shouldn't have to.

 

PvP isn't first come first serve at all, it's kill each other.

PvM isn't first come first serve either.

 

My point still stands that his example of PvP was a horrible example.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

In most cases you're right, the spots which are crowded on every world, graardor as mentioned in a different post. When it's something which isn't crowded however, say pretty much everything in kuradels dungeon for example, they're not increasing the availability of materials to the economy. Because if you're running out of spawns, which results in less kills and less drops, when one person could hop and then you could both kill more which lead to a greater introduction of materials. I don't think I phrased this very well so I hope someone can improve or you undertand me anyway.

I personally hop more often than not for this reason. Crashing often takes up a lot more time than the minute it takes to hop.

It's a judgment call I think. Crashing definitely isn't always the best option.

But I don't think the act of crashing itself is inherently bad.

 

on another note.

I disagree with your statement about kuradal's dungeon being not crowded. I've been slaying a lot recently. and it is REALLY darned crowded in there.

blue/iron dragons only respawn fast enough if i'm the only player in the room.

 

dark beasts and steel have a capacity of about myself +1 other player so long as he is not also maxed with rapier.

 

But I hop from kuradal's dungeon due to the endless influx of other players (who will crash me).

It's better to just find a world that people don't think to use in the first place. Because even if I drive off the first player who was there, a second, a third, and a fourth will come soon after.

[Golvellius]

Well, since you changed the subject of this thread from clown efficiency to what benefits the runescape community, I'm back.

 

Well, I think Crashing makes a healthy RuneScape economy.

 

The Social Cost (cost for the whole economy) of crashing is tiny, economically. One person gets less Xp/h, or obtains less raw materials per time. However, in the sense of obtaining goods, the Social Benefit would be more efficient use of a spot, therefore more raw materials available for the Economy than not crashing the spot. I think the Social Benefits would outweigh the Social Costs, and therefore crashing = good.

 

Someone prove me wrong.

Wrong.

Throw away your economics books its destroyed your common sense.

If the runescape community benefits from more drops of items then having both players work together would bring drops faster into the game.

More people, more kills per hour, its common sense.

BTW, your welcome.

 

This is true. It's more beneficial for the community for a maxed player to solo Graar than a 120 with a BGS, thus the crasher is actually the good guy.

Token answer from someone stuck inside a box.

Try thinking outside of it sometime.

If they both killed it together it would die faster and respawn more times per hour thus increasing the output of bandos junk.

A balance of competition and cooperation are what successful societies are based on.

[Bladewing]

two people killing two graardors on separate worlds equals more bandos items per hour, vs fewer if both of them stay on the same world (i.e. neither hops)

 

the 138 staying at graardor while the 120 goes back to blue dragons equals more value of items (bandos armor/weapon + dragonhide/bone) per hour produced (because the 120 can't get a world at all and has to go do something else)

 

the only places in runescape where synergy exists is dungeoneering and corporeal beast. gwd, dks, tds, and all other low monsters are more efficiently killed solo.

[stonewall337]

Well, I think Crashing makes a healthy RuneScape economy.

 

The Social Cost (cost for the whole economy) of crashing is tiny, economically. One person gets less Xp/h, or obtains less raw materials per time. However, in the sense of obtaining goods, the Social Benefit would be more efficient use of a spot, therefore more raw materials available for the Economy than not crashing the spot. I think the Social Benefits would outweigh the Social Costs, and therefore crashing = good.

 

Someone prove me wrong.

 

In most cases you're right, the spots which are crowded on every world, graardor as mentioned in a different post. When it's something which isn't crowded however, say pretty much everything in kuradels dungeon for example, they're not increasing the availability of materials to the economy. Because if you're running out of spawns, which results in less kills and less drops, when one person could hop and then you could both kill more which lead to a greater introduction of materials. I don't think I phrased this very well so I hope someone can improve or you undertand me anyway.

@vul. It has everything to do with it. Rs is a COMPETITIVE game. If you aren't competitive enough to either make me hop, or want to hop, then I can take your world. The whole point is COMPETITIVE.

 

You're two examples have nothing to do with crashing. How can I be competitive when I'm lower level and don't have the same gear? That's my point, I'm in it for fun, and I can't have fun when guys like you come and take my kills. You're making me hop, because you're ego tells you you're better than me, so you shouldn't have to.

 

PvP isn't first come first serve at all, it's kill each other.

PvM isn't first come first serve either.

 

My point still stands that his example of PvP was a horrible example.

 

 

You aren't competitive. How can you compete in the workplace when I have a masters degree in engineering and you have a GED. You can't. You need to get up to my level to be competitive.

 

PvP is a good example too. PvP is DIRECT competition, whilst PvM is indirect competition (Who can get the kills)

 

And gio, no. Duo bandos isn't twice as many kills an hour, or you'd be right. It would have to be more then double the speed to duo then to solo for it to bring more bandos items into the game.

[Assume Nothing]

two people killing two graardors on separate worlds equals more bandos items per hour, vs fewer if both of them stay on the same world (i.e. neither hops)

 

the 138 staying at graardor while the 120 goes back to blue dragons equals more value of items (bandos armor/weapon + dragonhide/bone) per hour produced (because the 120 can't get a world at all and has to go do something else)

 

the only places in runescape where synergy exists is dungeoneering and corporeal beast. gwd, dks, tds, and all other low monsters are more efficiently killed solo.

 

You forgot to account for the extra drain on resources for killing Graardor if trying to FFA, and failing due to level difference.

[Vulxai]

You aren't competitive. How can you compete in the workplace when I have a masters degree in engineering and you have a GED. You can't. You need to get up to my level to be competitive.

 

PvP is a good example too. PvP is DIRECT competition, whilst PvM is indirect competition (Who can get the kills)

 

And gio, no. Duo bandos isn't twice as many kills an hour, or you'd be right. It would have to be more then double the speed to duo then to solo for it to bring more bandos items into the game.

 

I may be wrong on the PvP as I don't do it, but how can you compare crashing someone's spawns to killing each other? I still don't see how you can compare the two. And exactly my point, I cannot compete with you (and no, I don't have a GED), so why force me to? I was there, so you should hop. It's actually common courtesy, but I know you wouldn't do that.

 

My point remains the same, you can just as easily hop worlds, pleasing both you and the person you DIDN'T crash, and look at that, more drops, better economy. Now, I know this is different for things like GWD, but I'm talking about, say AZ's, or Drags, something that you CAN find an empty world on. It's just laziness on the part of the crasher.

[Golvellius]

two people killing two graardors on separate worlds equals more bandos items per hour, vs fewer if both of them stay on the same world (i.e. neither hops)

the 138 staying at graardor while the 120 goes back to blue dragons equals more value of items (bandos armor/weapon + dragonhide/bone) per hour produced (because the 120 can't get a world at all and has to go do something else)

Only if there is a free world.

Graardor wouldn't be a good example of that.

 

the only places in runescape where synergy exists is dungeoneering and corporeal beast.

And loot share worlds.

[stonewall337]

two people killing two graardors on separate worlds equals more bandos items per hour, vs fewer if both of them stay on the same world (i.e. neither hops)

the 138 staying at graardor while the 120 goes back to blue dragons equals more value of items (bandos armor/weapon + dragonhide/bone) per hour produced (because the 120 can't get a world at all and has to go do something else)

Only if there is a free world.

Graardor wouldn't be a good example of that.

 

the only places in runescape where synergy exists is dungeoneering and corporeal beast. gwd, dks, tds, and all other low monsters are more efficiently killed solo.

Or loot share worlds.

Synergy is an INCREASE. LSing most bosses isn't efficient, as its more kills/hr to solo. Unless two people can kill twice, or more, faster then they each could do solo, they are better off solo. That takes into account things such as KC, etc.

[Assume Nothing]

two people killing two graardors on separate worlds equals more bandos items per hour, vs fewer if both of them stay on the same world (i.e. neither hops)

the 138 staying at graardor while the 120 goes back to blue dragons equals more value of items (bandos armor/weapon + dragonhide/bone) per hour produced (because the 120 can't get a world at all and has to go do something else)

Only if there is a free world.

Graardor wouldn't be a good example of that.

 

the only places in runescape where synergy exists is dungeoneering and corporeal beast. gwd, dks, tds, and all other low monsters are more efficiently killed solo.

Or loot share worlds.

 

The level 120 not killing Graardor at all is actually most beneficial to the Economy. We are assuming he's using a Godsword, so he's not really going to make kills that much faster. And most of the time between kills is because of the respawn rate, not the kill rate.

 

Also, the level 120 with a Godsword would be draining resources from the Economy in the form of food and potions, hence you are wrong.

 

We need a better example.

 

EDIT - What are we talking about here? The whole Economy, or you?

[Golvellius]

Synergy is an INCREASE. LSing most bosses isn't efficient, as its more kills/hr to solo. Unless two people can kill twice, or more, faster then they each could do solo, they are better off solo. That takes into account things such as KC, etc.

Synergy is when two things produce a better result when used together then when used separately.

If there isn't a free world then you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Obtaurian]

This is true. It's more beneficial for the community for a maxed player to solo Graar than a 120 with a BGS, thus the crasher is actually the good guy.

Token answer from someone stuck inside a box.

Try thinking outside of it sometime.

If they both killed it together it would die faster and respawn more times per hour thus increasing the output of bandos junk.

A balance of competition and cooperation are what successful societies are based on.

 

You're absolutely right. The 138 and 120 should be working together on that non-LS world to take Graar down! The 120 is such a jerk for leaving. If he would have stayed and helped the 138 get drops, we'd have more BCPs, tassets, and hilts to play with. Just goes to show that people who are against crashing are against a healthy economy. :/

[Vulxai]

Just goes to show that people who are against crashing are against a healthy economy. :/

 

I really don't see anything drastic to the economy if the crashers hopped instead of making someone else hop.

[Assume Nothing]

Just goes to show that people who are against crashing are against a healthy economy. :/

 

I really don't see anything drastic to the economy if the crashers hopped instead of making someone else hop.

 

If a level 3 takes up a Green Dragon Spawn at Chaos Tunnels, assuming no one else is there but you and the level 3, would you crash the level 3? The level 3's presence would actually slow the inflow of raw materials for the economy if you don't crash him, because he's killing the Green Dragon slower than anyone else that could crash him.

 

And usually, if the someone else hops and cannot find a world to obtain said raw material, they usually switch to something else.

 

And don't tell me this is unethical/immoral. Competition in a competitive game is normal, and not "bad".

[Vulxai]

Just goes to show that people who are against crashing are against a healthy economy. :/

 

I really don't see anything drastic to the economy if the crashers hopped instead of making someone else hop.

 

If a level 3 takes up a Green Dragon Spawn at Chaos Tunnels, assuming no one else is there but you and the level 3, would you crash the level 3? The level 3's presence would actually slow the inflow of raw materials for the economy if you don't crash him, because he's killing the Green Dragon slower than anyone else that could crash him.

 

And usually, if the someone else hops and cannot find a world to obtain said raw material, they usually switch to something else.

 

And don't tell me this is unethical/immoral. Competition in a competitive game is normal, and not "bad".

 

Why would a level 3 be killing Green Dragons?

[Assume Nothing]

Just goes to show that people who are against crashing are against a healthy economy. :/

 

I really don't see anything drastic to the economy if the crashers hopped instead of making someone else hop.

 

If a level 3 takes up a Green Dragon Spawn at Chaos Tunnels, assuming no one else is there but you and the level 3, would you crash the level 3? The level 3's presence would actually slow the inflow of raw materials for the economy if you don't crash him, because he's killing the Green Dragon slower than anyone else that could crash him.

 

And usually, if the someone else hops and cannot find a world to obtain said raw material, they usually switch to something else.

 

And don't tell me this is unethical/immoral. Competition in a competitive game is normal, and not "bad".

 

Why would a level 3 be killing Green Dragons?

 

You're missing the point. The character is level 3 because it more easily demonstrates what I'm trying to get at. People slow at killing things would slow down the inflows of raw materials, hence less items for the Economy (compared to crashing the slower player).

[Vulxai]

Just goes to show that people who are against crashing are against a healthy economy. :/

 

I really don't see anything drastic to the economy if the crashers hopped instead of making someone else hop.

 

If a level 3 takes up a Green Dragon Spawn at Chaos Tunnels, assuming no one else is there but you and the level 3, would you crash the level 3? The level 3's presence would actually slow the inflow of raw materials for the economy if you don't crash him, because he's killing the Green Dragon slower than anyone else that could crash him.

 

And usually, if the someone else hops and cannot find a world to obtain said raw material, they usually switch to something else.

 

And don't tell me this is unethical/immoral. Competition in a competitive game is normal, and not "bad".

 

Why would a level 3 be killing Green Dragons?

 

You're missing the point. The character is level 3 because it more easily demonstrates what I'm trying to get at. People slow at killing things would slow down the inflows of raw materials, hence less items for the Economy.

 

You're example was very exaggerated. A level 3 wouldn't be able to kill them, so obviously one would take the spawn, as the level 3 would die. They may be a little slower, however YOU can hop, letting them kill the green drags, while killing green drags in another world. You'd be bringing in loot, as well as them. The little time it takes for you to hop won't kill the economy.