Jump to content

Tip.It times - 3rd October 2010


Racheya

Recommended Posts

If you think letter to the editor type responses are necessary to be objective, you sir not only are sadly mistaken, but know little about writing.

 

As for efficiency, there is a general (real life) definition, and then there is one which is easier to prove in rs, gp/xp/time. We can easily show that. "effort" and "waste" are quite a bit harder to prove, since they are rather player-dependent. As such, I say my definition is far better.

 

Grind: I once again disagree with your definition of "grind". Runescape has specific meanings for certain words. "grind" isn't necessarily boring, by definition.

 

"lot of calculations with XP per hour" That is just not true. That is what is BS.

 

The next point is more an inference made by the author's tone, then a direct statement.

 

Erroneous claim backed up with extensive (10+ years) of gaming experience, including dozens of games, hundreds of friends, and thousand of interactions. By "proof" I meant scientific proof.

 

An author shouldn't use incorrect words, or he should expect to get called on it. What Rachaye meant is IRRELEVANT. Its what she said that counts.

 

Nefarious implies rule breaking. Simple as that.

 

You've made a number of claims about other people's knowledge of and ability to write, can you please explain to me what makes you eminently qualified to judge that? If you have a sample of your own writing that I can read, I would appreciate that as well. I would be willing to do the same for you if you like.

4925608028_032fb6a619.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

GP/xp/time has been explained...several dozen times. As well, I'd be willing to bet I have far more people agreeing with my points their yours. As for the "textbook" example, and "english speaking", that is just BULL. Ya see, RS has specific words which don't exactly correlate with other words. However, some words are just misused, such as Racheya's use of "elite", and the others I pointed out.

 

BTW: I've pointed out words etc on articles numerous times...and the staff hasn't deigned to respond.

 

I believe this has now developed more into a case where both are defending a side because of their personal stance. I fail to see what anything else could add to this discussion. My point has been made, and agreed with. I don't think anyone else will change their mind.

Stonewall337.png
[hide=Drops]Araxxor Eye x1 Leg pieces x2
GWD: 5000 Addy bar Steam B Staff x3 Z Spear x6 Sara. Hilt x2 Bandos Hilt x2 (LS, Solo)SS x6 (1 LS)
Tormented Demons: Shard x6 Slice x5 Claws x9 Limbs x3
DKS: Archer x21 Warrior x31 Berserker x30 Axe x51[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think letter to the editor type responses are necessary to be objective, you sir not only are sadly mistaken, but know little about writing.

 

As for efficiency, there is a general (real life) definition, and then there is one which is easier to prove in rs, gp/xp/time. We can easily show that. "effort" and "waste" are quite a bit harder to prove, since they are rather player-dependent. As such, I say my definition is far better.

 

Grind: I once again disagree with your definition of "grind". Runescape has specific meanings for certain words. "grind" isn't necessarily boring, by definition.

 

"lot of calculations with XP per hour" That is just not true. That is what is BS.

 

The next point is more an inference made by the author's tone, then a direct statement.

 

Erroneous claim backed up with extensive (10+ years) of gaming experience, including dozens of games, hundreds of friends, and thousand of interactions. By "proof" I meant scientific proof.

 

An author shouldn't use incorrect words, or he should expect to get called on it. What Rachaye meant is IRRELEVANT. Its what she said that counts.

 

Nefarious implies rule breaking. Simple as that.

 

You've made a number of claims about other people's knowledge of and ability to write, can you please explain to me what makes you eminently qualified to judge that? If you have a sample of your own writing that I can read, I would appreciate that as well. I would be willing to do the same for you if you like.

 

Lol at you guys jumping Stone, you don't see me waltzing to the reviews section of a major newspaper, magazine, or any publisher and asking them for their credentials or previous work....

Low_C.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think letter to the editor type responses are necessary to be objective, you sir not only are sadly mistaken, but know little about writing.

 

You've made a number of claims about other people's knowledge of and ability to write, can you please explain to me what makes you eminently qualified to judge that? If you have a sample of your own writing that I can read, I would appreciate that as well. I would be willing to do the same for you if you like.

 

Lol at you guys jumping Stone, you don't see me waltzing to the reviews section of a major newspaper, magazine, or any publisher and asking them for their credentials or previous work....

 

I'm not trying to 'jump' on him, I'm asking him because he's making statements about other people's abilities and I have no means of judging his own (aside from his posts, which don't provide a big enough sample). People don't generally ask for samples from professional writers for samples of their work because it's generally pretty easy to find some. If someone has written a review, I have something I can read and decide for myself whether or not I trust the judgment of the person.

 

He's questioned other people's ability to write and knowledge of writing, and in turn I'm questioning his. He's free to question mine in response, I'm not asking for anything I would not willingly provide in turn.

4925608028_032fb6a619.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think letter to the editor type responses are necessary to be objective, you sir not only are sadly mistaken, but know little about writing.

 

You've made a number of claims about other people's knowledge of and ability to write, can you please explain to me what makes you eminently qualified to judge that? If you have a sample of your own writing that I can read, I would appreciate that as well. I would be willing to do the same for you if you like.

 

Lol at you guys jumping Stone, you don't see me waltzing to the reviews section of a major newspaper, magazine, or any publisher and asking them for their credentials or previous work....

 

I'm not trying to 'jump' on him, I'm asking him because he's making statements about other people's abilities and I have no means of judging his own (aside from his posts, which don't provide a big enough sample). People don't generally ask for samples from professional writers for samples of their work because it's generally pretty easy to find some. If someone has written a review, I have something I can read and decide for myself whether or not I trust the judgment of the person.

 

He's questioned other people's ability to write and knowledge of writing, and in turn I'm questioning his. He's free to question mine in response, I'm not asking for anything I would not willingly provide in turn.

 

Asking for examples of his work/credentials doesn't make any sense. I don't need to have a degree in English to tell you that 'your' does not mean 'you are'.

dgs5.jpg
To put it bluntly, [bleep] off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with stonewall on this one. It's entirely fair that he can judge Racheya's writing without people judging his - now, if Stonewall were an article writer himself, and he came out with a piece of drivel that was equally biased in favor of playing efficiently all the time, using cliches and poor grammar to back his point up... well, I'd probably criticize his article despite agreeing in essence with his viewpoint.

MstrMonopoly.png

 

I piety the fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking for examples of his work/credentials doesn't make any sense. I don't need to have a degree in English to tell you that 'your' does not mean 'you are'.

 

No, you don't; but implying you know more about writing and are a better writer than other people leaves you open to people asking for evidence of it. I'm sorry, I don't just take people's word for it. I like to be able to judge things for myself and come to my own conclusions. His statements made me curious, so I asked. I could not find any examples of his writing on my own, so I asked for them. I'm not joking or trying to make a personal attack, I'm being completely honest and sincere without judgment (which I know can be difficult to tell in text, so I want to be clear about that).

 

And in case anyone is wondering, I'm not friends with Racheya or anyone on the Tip.It Times staff. I'm not affiliated with anyone who runs Tip.It; I was in Das' clan for a time, but that was some time ago. I have little to no personal investment in this, aside from being a person who dislikes when source material is skewed and misinterpreted in arguments. I will admit I'm not adverse to disagreeing with people and communicating my own point of view.

 

EDIT: Just to be entirely clear what prompted me to ask for credentials or writing samples, as I've realized some people are assuming I'm asking in response to Stonewall's comments about Racheya's article. It was actually nothing to do with Racheya's article or Stonewall's response to it, rather it was this comment made in response to jp7725's rebuttal of his points.

 

If you think letter to the editor type responses are necessary to be objective, you sir not only are sadly mistaken, but know little about writing.

 

Stonewall is stating what he believes jp knows about writing, I would like to know what Stonewall knows about writing. That's all.

4925608028_032fb6a619.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an undecided major student at the moment, but i'm taking some writing classes and even I could see problems with the article. If I was a professor of English at Yale it wouldn't matter, giving advice and critical criticism is not a bad thing. Nor does it require a B.A....

Low_C.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand:

 

"...achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense"

 

- Oxford Dictionaries Online

 

 

On the other hand:

 

gp/xp/time

 

 

gp/xp/time is the mathematical way to represent the following: A ratio of money per experience per time spent.

 

The time in this equation is defined normally as a set period of time, usually "1 hour/day/month/year" with "1 hour" being the most prevalently used unit for time. It does not make much sense to use more then 1 unit of time, as this immediately simplifies down to 1 upon completion of the calculation.

 

Using "1 hour" as the time in this equation brings us to gp/xp/hour, or money per experience per hour.

 

Players who try to be efficient at Runescape try to reduce this ratio. Hence, trying to be RS efficient can be worded as: An attempt to reduce the money spent per experience point gained over a set period of time.

 

Now, players can only strive to be efficient, just as people in the real world only try to be efficient. So, true RS efficiency can be defined as: Achieving the maximum possible experience with the minimum wasted time or money.

 

There are points on both sides, I know.

 

But these 2 definitions seem to be the same.

pere_grin.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an undecided major student at the moment, but i'm taking some writing classes and even I could see problems with the article. If I was a professor of English at Yale it wouldn't matter, giving advice and critical criticism is not a bad thing. Nor does it require a B.A....

 

Exactly. Glove, Stonewall is not the author here, Racheya is. Even if Stonewall declared himself the next Tolkien, his prowess in writing is completely mutually exclusive of his ability to see fallacies in Racheya's article. By your logic, the only people who are allowed to judge music are musicians, when clearly that is not the case.

dgs5.jpg
To put it bluntly, [bleep] off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GP/xp/time has been explained...several dozen times. As well, I'd be willing to bet I have far more people agreeing with my points their yours. As for the "textbook" example, and "english speaking", that is just BULL. Ya see, RS has specific words which don't exactly correlate with other words. However, some words are just misused, such as Racheya's use of "elite", and the others I pointed out.

 

BTW: I've pointed out words etc on articles numerous times...and the staff hasn't deigned to respond.

 

I believe this has now developed more into a case where both are defending a side because of their personal stance. I fail to see what anything else could add to this discussion. My point has been made, and agreed with. I don't think anyone else will change their mind.

 

Now you've just devolved into a puddle of gibberish. What a surprise from such a self-purported intellectual as yourself. I don't care how many of your buddies show up to defend you. It won't make you right. Learn to stand up for yourself, especially if you intend on freely slinging insults at people who disagree with you. I have read your posts on numerous articles, and they are often frivolous and insulting. The funniest part is you expect the staff to kiss your butt every week, like you've done someone a favor.

 

You tried to shrug me off with condescending insults instead of formulating an intelligent response. Fine, I can play on this field, too. You can try to play victim or dismiss me out of hand all you want as well. Do whatever it takes to avoid having a real discussion, because in two posts you've managed to show me you are nothing but hot air. I've read well constructed criticism by people like troacctid this week, and waheera in the past. I have yet to see anything that I could learn from you.

 

As for the rest of you, even Racheya admitted it's not the best written article, but you have gone way, way beyond grammar and style. You've taken to slinging mud at the author and entire staff, and reading insults where there are none. Do you even know what the message of the article really says? The article isn't about which style of play is the best. It's about learning to respect different playing styles instead of insulting and calling each other names. It says that as long as you are having fun, then it doesn't matter how efficient you are. That's a fairly positive message, and I agree with it.

 

And PereGrine, that was my real point all along. Stone was insulting her for using a universal definition of effiency, and insisted we use something only a few people have seen to express the same concept. In other words, it was an unnecessary criticism. In fact, it was a wrong suggestion, because Racheya's concept will be more widely understood by the audience.

rssig2.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we've gone far enough in the 'efficiency' debate. Racheya's article is heavily flawed, but I'm not the one making pointless arguments and hotheaded criticism. If I were her I would find that pretty discouraging.

 

I've seen too many discussions like this devolve into 'which side presents a better point'. Pointing fingers and blaming don't get you anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: you continue to think I was the one slinging mud at the staff. That was blade...

Stonewall337.png
[hide=Drops]Araxxor Eye x1 Leg pieces x2
GWD: 5000 Addy bar Steam B Staff x3 Z Spear x6 Sara. Hilt x2 Bandos Hilt x2 (LS, Solo)SS x6 (1 LS)
Tormented Demons: Shard x6 Slice x5 Claws x9 Limbs x3
DKS: Archer x21 Warrior x31 Berserker x30 Axe x51[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

That's not really the case. Obviously we can't provide constructive viewpoints without stepping on peoples toes.

 

When the going gets rough we should come to the decision on either wasting our breath or throwing in the towel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The editorial staff is made of volunteers, treat it as such. There will be some articles one will disagree with, and one is welcome to post in a respectable manner.

 

However, what I see is a few users going beyond constructive criticism, instead they are harassing Racheya, no ifs or buts about it, it's harassment. If it continues, it will be treated as such (1 warning, 2nd offense is a ban).

 

A few things that really disappointed me about this thread, friends being called in to help argue an argument, not a discussion. Bring up the past regarding a recruitment drive (my bad, I was severely overworked at the time we held it and wasn't able to pm everyone, but instead posted in the thread that we pm'ed all who were choosen) was low.

 

Comparing the times to a professional paper, if that was the case, lots of the replies I have seen would have gone in the junk mail folder.

nodiehytnew.png
RIP Michaelangelopolous
Thanks to cowboy14 for the pimp sig!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrhairychest

Comparing the times to a professional paper, if that was the case, lots of the replies I have seen would have gone in the junk mail folder.

Doh! He got me! I'd argue this point but I don't really have a leg to stand on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And PereGrine, that was my real point all along. Stone was insulting her for using a universal definition of effiency, and insisted we use something only a few people have seen to express the same concept. In other words, it was an unnecessary criticism. In fact, it was a wrong suggestion, because Racheya's concept will be more widely understood by the audience.

Perhaps. Myself, I would have preferred the Oxford English definition, such as you gave. The mathematical simplification that stonewall337 posted is very useful for the quick calculations, and a least should get an honorable mention, because it has units that actually mean something.

 

gp/xp calculations are nice because when you multiply them by the xp/time you get, you can literally see how fast you are burning through your money. :ohnoes:

 

Oh, there is no "e" at the end of my name btw. Normally wouldn't matter, but TIF does have a user named Peregrine, who is not me. But we have already had several occurrences of us being confused for each other.

pere_grin.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding like a no-life, overachieving, over-efficient player, I will say this: You can't play RS at all without clicking, as far as I know...but you can't play RS well without putting some thought into what you're doing. THAT I'm sure of.

 

Stand in the G.E. and you'll hear players desperately trying to throw their hard-earned gold away on bowls, knives, ropes, bronze arrows, and so forth and so on. All of these items are easily obtainable, but players will stand in the G.E. for thirty minutes, forty minutes, an hour! It never occurred to me to stand in the G.E. when I needed a rope or a bowl, honestly. I used Tip-It to find the item if I didn't know where it was. When you tell a player, 'Talk to Duke Horatio on the second floor of Lumby Castle; he'll give you a free antifire shield,' s/he will often reply, 'Yh, I know,' and go right on spamming for the item.

 

I'd talk to the Duke every time. Call me an efficiency noob if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racheya, you didn't point out there are fundamentally 2 types of inefficiency, the aware and unaware types. I for example prefer to train Thieving in Pyramid Plunder rather than the Thieving Guild because the first is more dynamic. I choose to be less efficient in xp/h terms in favor of making the activity less of a grind to me. I am making a conscious rejection of efficiency in this case.

However what I think most often occurs is people that are simply unaware of better methods that involve similar grinding or fun. Such as when training herblore and someone makes a pot that costs 2k to make instead of one that costs 1.5k and both give the same XP per potion. It annoys me to no end; those people are losing money for absolutely no good reason! I hate to see pointless waste like that.

 

Also, in certain situations you can't give yourself the luxury of being inefficient, such as when dungeoneering with a group. By wasting your own time, you also waste the time of 4 other people, wich isn't fair at all. Some of them are very xp/h and/or time-conscious, they have to go to sleep soon, etc. You should have touched upon this matter as well.

 

Great article nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, I must say this IS getting out of hand here. While I still don't like the style of Racheya's Article and agree with most of the basic points of the critics, there is really no need for such an almost full-scale war (everything allowed that's not against the forum rules).

 

 

I won't further discuss the article or the discussion about the article, imo, enough has been said, I hope Racheya can see through the insults and get some advice for future articles and I also hope I won't see another discussion that goes like this....

 

 

 

Just one thing I have to say: I think it was Stonewall and someone else, don't blame me if I'm wrong, I'm not going back all the pages. They complained about how they couldn't show their skills as they weren't accepted to the editorial staff and didn't even get a response.

I don't know if you tried it yourself, but I have written a guest article. It got released very soon, the staff even regarded my request to put it up as soon as possible due to a certain deadline regarding the article. Tbh, I find it no great wonder you don't get accepted without a guest article written and also regarding on how some of you have behaved and behave in these discussion threads(Again, I'm sorry if I'm mixing people up, but I'm relatively sure I don't)

 

Just write a guest article or two, it's fun, and I'm sure it will get published if it's a decent one.

 

 

 

for myself, after two failed attempts where Jagex ruined my almost finished second article, I've gotten to writing a fictional ;)

Not sure how it turns out though^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Troacctid on Page 2, pardon that I don't know how to quote/hide tags.

 

But, the meaning of efficiency in such a context, can imply that:

1) What you mention as minimal grinding

2) Maximising exp gains in shortest time possible - I.E Grinding at a skill for most efficient players

 

Thus, I beg to differ as I consider that efficient playing is definition 2. Grinding is not always efficient, but some people do it to try to maximise their exp.

 

Efficiency has multiple definitions in this case, or maybe more. Depends on you.

 

Don't play lifeless/without a meaning, is what I personally advocate.

 

It depends on the individual player though. Nevertheless, a conclusion made may only cover certain groups of players, not necessarily all.

 

And, I do not compare GP wastages to efficiency directly. (E.g GP spending on 1.5k item to give 10 exp compared to 2k item to give 10 exp) - as I do not consider GP usage as 1 of my efficiency, I feel.

Yeah, like that zaryte bow

wait

recharge costs = ammo.

So, all melee weapons are overpowered, at least.

this combat triangle finally makes sense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crit2h, to quote you can copy the person's text, paste in your answer, then put

in the beggining of the text and [*/quote] at the end, but without the asterisk. To hide it's the same thing, but substitute "quote" for "spoiler" in both cases. If you want to specify the person in the quote box, use
in the beggining instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hide and quote coding below.

 

[hide=For Crit2h]

Hide Codes:

 
[hide] stuff goes here [/hide] 
[hide='name of hide'] stuff goes here [/hide]

 

Looks like:

[hide=name of hide]

stuff goes here

[/hide]

 

 

Quote codes:

 
[quote] stuff goes here [/quote] 
[quote name='name of quoted person'] stuff goes here [/quote]

 

Looks like:

stuff goes here

[/hide]

pere_grin.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.