Jump to content
TheAncient

An Elitist's View on Crashing

Recommended Posts

Again - what's wrong with that?

 

The fact that you have to ask in kind of funny.

 

Don't mean to flame, but I don't understand how you've addressed this point. Again I use the work analogy. Let's say I have a certain position at a company, and I do a terrible job. Is there anything wrong with my boss laying me off because someone else wants my position and has shown that he can do it better than me? Sometimes that's just how the world works.

 

You get hired under the assumption that you can perform to a certain level. There is no such assumption in Runescape. When it comes to MH, the only assumptions are that you need to be better then the monster you're attacking; not better then someone else who also wants to attack that monster.

 

I'm not advocating this worldview in all cases. But if MHing is as crowded as I claim it is, what's wrong with fighting for what I want?

 

Because you're pushing the kid off the proverbial swing because you think you're more deserving of it then he is.

 

Your premise (kill speed = efficiency) isn't necessarily valid; what if I say that efficiency is max net expectational gain in GP per hour? Then there's no reason to ignore the expected loss from dying.

 

I say this as nicely as possible, but lol. Come on, now. Which player are you going to try to crash on account of them being inefficient? Player A who kills 20 TD's an hour and spends 100K doing it, or Player B who kills 100 TD's an hour but spends 5M doing it? Unless you're some kind of masochist, you're going to say Player A, even though he spends less killing TD's then does Player B (500 coins per demon killed vs. 50K per demon killed). And why are you going to crash Player A versus Player B? Because Player A kills them five times as slow as Player B, which means you have a much better chance of crashing Player A then Player B. That's the point. Efficiency has to do with kills per hour. Nothing else matters when it comes to trying to crash someone. Nothing. It doesn't matter how much money someone is wasting. If they're getting more kills per hour then you can, you're not going to try to crash them.

 

We're kind of getting into something subjective here, but I'm pretty sure measuring efficiency as max net expectational gain is a better method than measuring kill speed. This example has been brought up before: if I were really "efficient" by your definition I'd be using vesta and overloads for slayer tasks. Also probably not eating at all, because eating slows down attack turns.

 

No. In an online game, the only thing that matters is time. That's why people use overloads and a cannon for slayer, even though it costs more to do so. That's why people altar dragon bones instead of big bones, even though it costs more exponentially to do so then altaring big bones or even baby dragon bones. That's why people burn yews or magics when training firemaking rather then willows and maples, assuming they can afford to do so. And so on and so forth.

 

Yes. I don't think that's a problem, either. As I said before, you're playing an MMO. If you wanted to be social and make friends, why not do it elsewhere? I'd rather much build real life relationships than with people I'll probably never see. I don't mind playing a game where the people aren't friendly - as long as they're not cruel and mean to each other, then that's fine.

 

It's an MMO. So what? I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Is the relationship between players adversarial?

 

Again - what's wrong with that?

 

The fact that you have to ask in kind of funny.

 

Don't mean to flame, but I don't understand how you've addressed this point. Again I use the work analogy. Let's say I have a certain position at a company, and I do a terrible job. Is there anything wrong with my boss laying me off because someone else wants my position and has shown that he can do it better than me? Sometimes that's just how the world works.

 

You get hired under the assumption that you can perform to a certain level. There is no such assumption in Runescape. When it comes to MH, the only assumptions are that you need to be better then the monster you're attacking; not better then someone else who also wants to attack that monster.

 

I'm not advocating this worldview in all cases. But if MHing is as crowded as I claim it is, what's wrong with fighting for what I want?

 

Because you're pushing the kid off the proverbial swing because you think you're more deserving of it then he is.

 

Your premise (kill speed = efficiency) isn't necessarily valid; what if I say that efficiency is max net expectational gain in GP per hour? Then there's no reason to ignore the expected loss from dying.

 

I say this as nicely as possible, but lol. Come on, now. Which player are you going to try to crash on account of them being inefficient? Player A who kills 20 TD's an hour and spends 100K doing it, or Player B who kills 100 TD's an hour but spends 5M doing it? Unless you're some kind of masochist, you're going to say Player A, even though he spends less killing TD's then does Player B (500 coins per demon killed vs. 50K per demon killed). And why are you going to crash Player A versus Player B? Because Player A kills them five times as slow as Player B, which means you have a much better chance of crashing Player A then Player B. That's the point. Efficiency has to do with kills per hour. Nothing else matters when it comes to trying to crash someone. Nothing. It doesn't matter how much money someone is wasting. If they're getting more kills per hour then you can, you're not going to try to crash them.

 

We're kind of getting into something subjective here, but I'm pretty sure measuring efficiency as max net expectational gain is a better method than measuring kill speed. This example has been brought up before: if I were really "efficient" by your definition I'd be using vesta and overloads for slayer tasks. Also probably not eating at all, because eating slows down attack turns.

 

No. In an online game, the only thing that matters is time. That's why people use overloads and a cannon for slayer, even though it costs more to do so. That's why people altar dragon bones instead of big bones, even though it costs more exponentially to do so then altaring big bones or even baby dragon bones. That's why people burn yews or magics when training firemaking rather then willows and maples, assuming they can afford to do so. And so on and so forth.

 

Yes. I don't think that's a problem, either. As I said before, you're playing an MMO. If you wanted to be social and make friends, why not do it elsewhere? I'd rather much build real life relationships than with people I'll probably never see. I don't mind playing a game where the people aren't friendly - as long as they're not cruel and mean to each other, then that's fine.

 

It's an MMO. So what? I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Is the relationship between players adversarial?

 

No, that's not what efficiency is. Efficiency is a composite of time, money, and xp. For reference, http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Efficiency. Kill speed is NOT everything. Again, this explains the conspicuous absence of Morrigan's Javelins in Armadyl GWD teams.

 

I know what efficiency is, and is Runescape efficiency relates to time. There's a reason people consider it efficient to train slayer with a cannon then without, even though it costs a hell of a lot more to train slayer via the use of a cannon then without.

 

Players who are competing for the same KBD spawn? Of course it is.

 

As I stated in my post, such a relationship only exists because one party decides that they want to impede on another. Most boss monsters are in multi-combat because they were designed to be killed with a team-- not so two people could compete to see who is the better player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sly, no offense, but I seriously think you're just trying to troll. I can't really answer any of your claims because I don't even think we're on the same page... If you really are insistent on disagreeing, just choose not to respond. At this point I think it's obvious we're going nowhere.

 

So if I were a boot camp trainer, would I feel bad if one of my trainees had a mental breakdown because of me?

 

Social expectations depend situationally.

 

Erm, I would hope you would feel bad yes? But i don't quite get how that relates, please explain?

 

We are all on equal terms in this game. We all pay roughly the same, we all play for hopefully the same reasons (having fun, wasting time etc). We should all treat each other with basic respect we would if meeting another person on the street, as that is basically what we are doing.

 

Like I said - social expectations depend situationally:

 

If I were a boot camp trainer and I was mean to a trainee, and they broke down because of my harshness, did I do something socially wrong? Not really. In that scenario we expect the boot camp trainer to be mean. I'm just doing my job, and I wouldn't change anything about what I did - because society as a whole would agree with me.

 

The point of the analogy is to highlight that whether or not you're supposed to be "nice" to people depends on your expectations of the context. I'm claiming you shouldn't expect people to be nice to you on an MMO. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with not being nice to people on an MMO. That is, of course, unless you know them in real life, because then your relationship is totally different.

 

Using your analogy of random people on the street: If I'm about to go to a job interview but am running late, and a guy in front of me called for the same taxi I called for just a few seconds later, I would have no regrets fighting for that taxi seat because I feel I deserve the taxi more than him.

 

Am I disrespecting the other person? Not really. Am I being malicious? No. Am I being nice? No. I'm just doing what I think is best for me in the situation, and in that specific context (a random street corner) it's generally socially acceptable to do so. Call it selfish, but I don't think it's a problem when the other people are rando's. The same attitude pervades, for example, NYC, and I don't really see why it's a problem.

 

However, say I'm on vacation in a popular tourist area. Most of the vacationers' expectations are to have a nice trip and not really to be bothered. Maybe even have one or two amicable conversations with another tourist. In those cases, the social expectation is for you to be nice and friendly. In those cases, butting in and taking someone's taxi is out of societal expectations, and in those cases you are in the wrong.

 

Again: I'm not advocating to be nonsensically mean to someone, because that ends up bothering you and is a mess to deal with.


sigcopyaf.png

Ever wanted to find street prices of RS items? Check out the SPOLI Index

 

Nex Drops: Pernix Cowl, Pernix Chaps, Torva Helm, Torva Platebody, Zaryte Bow, Pernix Chaps, Virtus Robe Legs, Virtus Robe Top, Torva Platelegs, Zaryte Bow, Pernix Chaps, Virtus Robe Legs, Zaryte Bow, Virtus Mask, Torva Legs, Virtus Robe Legs, Virtus Robe Top, Virtus Robe Top, Zaryte Bow, Virtus Robe Legs, Virtus Robe Top, Virtus Robe Top, Torva Platelegs, Zaryte Bow, Pernix Body, Torva Platelegs, Torva Platelegs, Virtus Robe Top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a race being held with a cash price of $100. One person sees the advertisement, and enters the race. I show up to register after him. I am a much faster runner, and we both know this. Is it unethical for me to enter the race, given that he was there first? By your logic I should opt not to contest because it would be pushing him off the proverbial swing because I want the prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if the items crash? That's a price floor, and it's really not efficient. Runescape WOULD be better off with instanced bosses and cheaper drops.

 

Well, other than everyone with a boss item raging because they just lost half there wealth... Like i know jagex has a habit of pissing people off with new updates, but theres no reason to add more to the mix...

 

... All boss items being stupidly common because everyone with the stats to boss hunt can and will, so its no longer limited by things like numbers of worlds or competeting with other boss hunters.

 

Plus, you have no real motivation to hunt bosses with others, bosses are generally meant to be hunted in a team, thats why they are all multi-combat. With no competition hunting with a friend would really just slow you both down, why not just hunt individually in your own little instanced boss room. By comparison right now you have a motivation to hunt with a friend because you are less likely to get crashed.

 

Dont get me wrong, i think the prices on many items are downright ridiculous, but instanced boss rooms are not the way to go about it.


O.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a race being held with a cash price of $100. One person sees the advertisement, and enters the race. I show up to register after him. I am a much faster runner, and we both know this. Is it unethical for me to enter the race, given that he was there first? By your logic I should opt not to contest because it would be pushing him off the proverbial swing because I want the prize.

 

You enter a race knowing that only one person can win. It's an implicit assumption attached to the activity. People seem to be under some kind of illusion that boss monsters are in multi-combat because they were designed in order for people to prove how much better they are then someone. They weren't. They're that way because they were designed to be team activities, which is why-- once upon a time, at least-- Jagex was insistent on making sure that said NPC's couldn't be solo'ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You kill a boss knowing that only one person can get the drop.

 

GWD bosses are in multicombat so that the minions can pile you and so you can use familiars.

 

And this is also why every other boss is/was multi-combat.


O.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You kill a boss knowing that only one person can get the drop.

 

Which is why people sold the drops and split amongst their teammates pre-trading limits, and why there's CS/LS post-trading limits.

 

GWD bosses are in multicombat so that the minions can pile you and so you can use familiars.

 

1.) Summoning wasn't out when God Wars was released.

 

2.) I'm fairly sure Jagex could have just made the minions act like death spawns if they wanted to. Following your logic, the KQ is in multi-combat only so it's minions could attack you. Of course, a few changes later, including nerfing the rune throwing axe special and adding a new range attack, kind of rendered that assertion wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a race being held with a cash price of $100. One person sees the advertisement, and enters the race. I show up to register after him. I am a much faster runner, and we both know this. Is it unethical for me to enter the race, given that he was there first? By your logic I should opt not to contest because it would be pushing him off the proverbial swing because I want the prize.

 

You enter a race knowing that only one person can win. It's an implicit assumption attached to the activity. People seem to be under some kind of illusion that boss monsters are in multi-combat because they were designed in order for people to prove how much better they are then someone. They weren't. They're that way because they were designed to be team activities, which is why-- once upon a time, at least-- Jagex was insistent on making sure that said NPC's couldn't be solo'ed.

 

This after bashing people for "false" base arguments?

 

At the only boss that Jagex seriously attempted to make unsoloable (the Corporeal Beast), crashing is not nearly as big of an issue and has only been mentioned mockingly in this thread.

 

We've turned this into a debate about ethics and psychology when it really all started from a discussion about finding a spot for your character to kill some monsters. I think we've agreed by now that crashing without attempting to hop worlds is wrong, but I'm really astonished at the two concepts you have pushed forth so far - that the first player to as much as breathe on a resource should get full dibs on the rewards and that all bosses were created to be team/collaborative activities.


2496 Completionist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not advocating this worldview in all cases. But if MHing is as crowded as I claim it is, what's wrong with fighting for what I want?

 

Because you're pushing the kid off the proverbial swing because you think you're more deserving of it then he is.

Are you implying spot-stealing is ethically equivalent or even comparable to assaulting children? :blink:

 

I think we've agreed by now that crashing without attempting to hop worlds is wrong

No we haven't and no it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, we're really not arguing on the same page. It's pretty clear that certain discussions are going nowhere.


sigcopyaf.png

Ever wanted to find street prices of RS items? Check out the SPOLI Index

 

Nex Drops: Pernix Cowl, Pernix Chaps, Torva Helm, Torva Platebody, Zaryte Bow, Pernix Chaps, Virtus Robe Legs, Virtus Robe Top, Torva Platelegs, Zaryte Bow, Pernix Chaps, Virtus Robe Legs, Zaryte Bow, Virtus Mask, Torva Legs, Virtus Robe Legs, Virtus Robe Top, Virtus Robe Top, Zaryte Bow, Virtus Robe Legs, Virtus Robe Top, Virtus Robe Top, Torva Platelegs, Zaryte Bow, Pernix Body, Torva Platelegs, Torva Platelegs, Virtus Robe Top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My argument is based on both efficiency and risk (yes, I can use both). It's more efficient (higher population, use of extremes/overloads) and less risky (much less risk, no chance of being PK'd) to use normal worlds.

 

No, your argument is based on risk, more specifically convenience to yourself. Notice how the thought that you couldn't use extremes/overloads didn't even cross your mind until someone pointed it out to you (I wish he hadn't, because I wanted to see how long you were going to argue without mentioning them)? You see, even assuming you could use extremes/overloads in PvP, you still wouldn't MH on those worlds. I can guarantee you even if you gained a 10% damage boost versus all monsters on a PvP world that you still wouldn't boss hunt on them, even though it would be more efficient to do so. Why? Because if you died you'd have to go through the trouble of reacquiring all your lost items, which you don't want to do (much like you don't want to world hop to find an empty world).

 

Also, the chance of you being PK'ed at GWD on a PvP server is, like, 0.000001%. Seriously.

 

Of course I'd prefer to minimize my risk. :rolleyes: You're just getting angry now because someone else reminded me of a point that hurts your argument even more. I get the feeling I'm being trolled hard.

 

Wow, you really dropped the ball there. PVP worlds, believe it or not, have this little catch where you can either keep one item or no items depending on which type of world you use. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious flaw in your argument based on this information.

 

Yeah, no kidding. That doesn't really address why certain weapons or armor on a PvP server would suddenly block fewer attacks, hit less often or hit less harder, which is what you were burdened with explaining.

 

I'm burdened with commenting on your "what if . . . " scenario because you said so? Yeah, okay buddy.

Wrong.

 

Not wrong.

 

Still wrong.

You're absolutely right. It's much more convenient. It's also more efficient.

 

See my first response.

 

See my signature.

 

Exactly. If you're going to give me unreasonable ultimatums, I'm going to give you the same.

 

Except my advice wasn't unreasonable. I've gone to PvP servers to train plenty of times wearing 50M+, and yes I've even been attacked once (Luckily he was a noob and tried to TB me lol), and I'm fairly sure that I've seen people PK in stuff worth twice that much.

 

Training on a PVP world while risking 50M? Wow, how scary. I can see how that's comparable to soloing Graardor while risking several hundreds of millions.

 

Comments in bold.

 

Like Sseli said, we're clearly not on the same page here. Maybe you'd use a PVP world instead of crashing, but I wouldn't. It's more efficient and less risky for me to just crash a low level player. Don't like it? Sucks for you.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT: People who tell themselves that it is possible to find a empty world for the major bosses by world hopping and have not exactly killed the bosses, but speak on some sort of moral high ground.

 

Bandos was bad a year ago, it was bad 6 months ago, its worse now.


SOS_100x100.png

Help drive change Canada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This after bashing people for "false" base arguments?

 

At the only boss that Jagex seriously attempted to make unsoloable (the Corporeal Beast), crashing is not nearly as big of an issue and has only been mentioned mockingly in this thread.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I've been playing Runescape longer then you, and that you didn't start playing Runescape before 2005. For if you had, you would have known that Jagex revamped the KBD's lair, like, three or four times and changed the way his breath attacks worked in order to get people to stop solo'ing it. You would also know that when the KQ came out, it only had a magic and melee attack, and that after people figured out how to range solo the entire thing the whole way through, Jagex totally nerfed the rune throwing axe special and added a range attack to make it exponentially more difficult for people to solo. There were a few changes to the DK's lair, but that was mainly to get people to stop safe spotting Rex, and a few changes to GWD's in which also made it a bit more difficult to people to solo by hiding in the door frames. As it stands, no, boss monsters really weren't made to be solo'ed. History attests to this fact.

 

I actually wish I still had the links to the updates Jagex gave us regarding the new game engine in the RSC -> RS2 conversion when they explained multi-combat areas.

 

We've turned this into a debate about ethics and psychology when it really all started from a discussion about finding a spot for your character to kill some monsters. I think we've agreed by now that crashing without attempting to hop worlds is wrong, but I'm really astonished at the two concepts you have pushed forth so far - that the first player to as much as breathe on a resource should get full dibs on the rewards and that all bosses were created to be team/collaborative activities.

 

I'm really astonished that:

 

1.) The concept of decency is lost upon some people. And

 

2.) You would think that Jagex would put boss-monster in multi-combat if it was meant to be solo'ed, and are content to ignore changes that Jagex has made to make it harder to solo boss monsters.

 

Of course I'd prefer to minimize my risk. :rolleyes: You're just getting angry now because someone else reminded me of a point that hurts your argument even more. I get the feeling I'm being trolled hard.

 

You haven't made any point. Like... At all. But it's nice that you think you have. Plus, I'm as happy as I always am.

 

I'm burdened with commenting on your "what if . . . " scenario because you said so? Yeah, okay buddy.

 

No. Just explaining your reasoning behind your original statement. But seeing how absurd of a statement it was, you can't.

 

Training on a PVP world while risking 50M? Wow, how scary. I can see how that's comparable to soloing Graardor while risking several hundreds of millions.

 

That's 50M more then you're willing to risk. See how that works?

 

Like Sseli said, we're clearly not on the same page here. Maybe you'd use a PVP world instead of crashing, but I wouldn't. It's more efficient and less risky for me to just crash a low level player. Don't like it? Sucks for you.

 

Of course you won't, even though it's there. That's kind of the point. You do what conveniences you to do. I'm pretty sure I said that pages and pages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's 50M more then you're willing to risk. See how that works?

 

Nope, that's more like 30-40M more than I'm willing to risk.

 

Of course you won't, even though it's there. That's kind of the point. You do what conveniences you to do. I'm pretty sure I said that pages and pages ago.

 

It's more convenient, more efficient, and less risky. How is that so hard to understand?


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see two groups of people, one that is acting under the belief that the way RS is set up is for people to use their superior abilities to carve out a place for themselves in the game because they are all competing for the same resources, and the other that believes that the RS community benefiting as a whole rather than rewarding the strongest individuals with the lion's share of the loot would be a more even handed approach of mutual interest.

 

Both of these viewpoints are valid in this environment.

 

On one end, we have a game that was designed mainly for the individual, who toils countless hours alone in order to claw their way up the leaderboard and look cool, and on the other hand, this is a multiplayer game that heavily enforces honor for others (or at least tries to) by restricting players from being able to directly take something from somebody else outside of a PvP situation, and often activities are designed to require teams (dungeoneering was originally exclusive to teams) and give a lot of support to community activities. The need for stability in the game world is important, because a world ruled entirely by force is rather unpleasant for the losing party, while on the other hand if somebody has outsmarted or outmatched their peers, he would have earned his keep.

 

Jagex is somewhat noncommittal on the matter, because they have to be. They reward the highest ranked directly or indirectly for being the best. Then they start designing content that rewards teamwork more than the currently existing similar methods for individuals. Then they break down and give the individuals better stuff again. And so on. Single drops that are so valuable by themselves and are impossible to be owned by more than one individual. Coinshare. They try to be everything at once, and it is a hard job. And there's no way they could focus on one more than the other because the player base isn't strongly affiliated with either side. You hear somebody important say that they entirely endorse the "might makes right" situation in the monster hunting business, and then somebody else also important gushes about how they enjoyed building team based situations. And it's kind of irritating both sides.

 

Do you believe that the game should be designed so that your only option (or at least, the only option you can think of inside of your box) for game enjoyment requires you to limit or entirely block the enjoyment of the rest of the player base? Or should everybody be given the same opportunities regardless of their playing style, their overall clocked time, or general ability because at the end of the day everybody's paid their five-ish bucks and are playing the same game, even though some are better at it than others, and arguably deserve more reward for more effort? Is your percieved value of something entirely dependent on the fact that somebody else doesn't have it? Or if somebody else has it and you don't?

 

This philosophy debate is not offtopic because it is really the heart of the matter here. Do you deserve a spot because you're better, or because it shouldn't matter that you're better?


8f14270694.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slywizard, the majority is rarely ever right. This is the exception. 50 million tif'ers telling you you're wrong cannot be wrong. Many of these people speaking out against you monster hunt daily, I am pretty sure (unless you have an a-log you can show us) that they are more up to date with the ways of things going on. They understand the risks, dynamics, and frankly are just generally more knowledgeable about the whole experience, than you at the moment. There's really no way out, you keep on making the same argument, they make the same rebuttal. Here's the difference, they are actually playing, you have no RS name listed nothing. And don't say "morals never change" or something, because that is headache for another day.


I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pvp worlds arent option as you cant use overloads on grandor

 

how would u guys feel if at 95 dgneering u could have 1 instanced td and at 110 you no longer need killcount to get into the godwars dungeon bosses and get them instanced.


StarViv.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone can feel bad about crashing when the game mechanics encourage higher levels to do so and the fact that Jagex have come out and said that crashing isn't an issue. I believe the statement was "get big or get out".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name changing is such a wonderful thing. Of course, if you feel compared to look me up, then go type in Gosei Sly. At any rate, I guess I will go not play Runescape now and try to become more knowledgeable on the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if having a larger stake of interest in the related topic makes you more right on basic principle (blah blah bias danger), but in this case, until Jagex stops intending for drops to be heavily valued limited supply single items, the scale currently tips harder in the direction of the individual over the community.

 

I'm sure Jagex would largely deny specifically designing their game to restrict public non-PvP content to the strongest, most amoral players though for the purpose of distributing enjoyment of their game to them over the rest of the playerbase.

 

Not that I have any problem with it, it's really the ambiguity that bothers me.


8f14270694.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boss rooms are public areas. If I'm killing the KBD and you walk in to do the same, you have just as much right to be there as I do, and I will respect that right and expect you to do the same for me. It doesn't matter who was there first. We're both here now, and either one of us has the right to choose whether or not to hop worlds. I will respect that right as well and expect you to do the same for me. If you don't want to hop, and I don't want to hop, then I guess we're fighting for that KBD spawn, and it's your decision as much as mine. As far as I'm concerned, that's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name changing is such a wonderful thing. Of course, if you feel compared to look me up, then go type in Gosei Sly. At any rate, I guess I will go not play Runescape now and try to become more knowledgeable on the game.

 

Yea, this is unrelated, but I don't get why TIFers like you have empty RS names/avvys/sigs. Anyways, so congrats. You still play. However, your thought processes are still of one who's not played since June 20th 2004.

 

 

I'm not sure if having a larger stake of interest in the related topic makes you more right on basic principle (blah blah bias danger), but in this case, until Jagex stops intending for drops to be heavily valued limited supply single items, the scale currently tips harder in the direction of the individual over the community.

 

I'm sure Jagex would largely deny specifically designing their game to restrict public non-PvP content to the strongest, most amoral players though for the purpose of distributing enjoyment of their game to them over the rest of the playerbase.

 

Not that I have any problem with it, it's really the ambiguity that bothers me.

 

 

While it usually is true that you may not need specific knowledge when discussing fundamental principles, I think this is one of those exceptions, if only because the Runescape world tends to not be bound by the same laws of logic as our world.

 

 

Unrelated note: This guy came into my dk world while I was maging, he had divine, yak, fire surge, epic gear in general. He could have easily crashed me, so I said "gtfo" he said "k" and logged. L. I was ready to leave actually, I didn't think he'd actually hop.


I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 

My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):

Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193)

Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)
Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KC

If you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as long as you're both mature about it! :thumbup:

 

Also I'm just using general MMO concepts extrapolated from a series of games in the genre which should be close enough to this specific case.


8f14270694.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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