An Elitist's View on Crashing

[Obtaurian]

I agree that egoism is not totally wrong, but to what extent can you use that to justify actions? Can you say the bussinessmen that caused the recession were just keeping a healthy ego? What about doctors that scam their patients? Does hacking someone's account and stealing their money (pretend free trade existed) constitute as being efficient in an MMO so you can simulate success? Isn't all this just a core part of selfish egoism?

 

I don't like you. You've somehow derailed this discussion into a comparison to the real world that neither makes sense nor applies to Runescape in the slightest. Hacking someone's account is AGAINST THE RULES. As others have said, crashing is NOT AGAINST THE RULES. Do you see where your argument went completely off-base? It doesn't matter if someone gets caught hacking or not, because it's AGAINST THE RULES. We are discussing CRASHING, not HACKING.

 

What the [bleep] does hacking have to do with crashing FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING MORE KILLS AT A BOSS? I could go out and hack 10 maxed accounts and I'd STILL have to crash Bandos. It doesn't make a difference. So how, exactly, is hacking more efficient than crashing in regards to killing bosses?

 

I also like how you retired three years ago, but you somehow feel that you're entitled to an opinion. It's really cute. What could you possibly know about the MHing climate in Runescape today?

 

That sig was really old, i still can't figure out how to change it. I started playing about 5 months ago, and didn't start posting on tip.it until recently. I'll figure out how to change it soon.

 

Hacking doesn't have anything to do with MH. But I bet it could be just as efficient way to make money. That's apparently the reason crashing is justified, so i mean i could use that to justify hacking or glitching, or anything else that benifits me in the game no matter how terrible the action is right? Apparently anything that is the best way to benifit the player is ok, so when if i countered every crasher by hacking their accounts? Its efficent yes? Who cares if its against the rules? I can get away with it, just like you can get away with crashing me. I had to take so many computer classes i've earned my right to take happiness away from people.

 

Alright, let's assume for a second (just a second) that hacking is not against the rules. As with MHing, I assume that it takes a lot of time and effort to get to the point where you can start doing it effectively and successfully. I know of no way to hack a stranger's account other than brute-forcing their password (good luck) or tricking someone into downloading a trojan, so I assume, again, that you'd have to be an incredibly skilled computer scientist or something of that ilk (even then, I highly doubt you could hack my account).

 

So now you can hack whoever you want, presumably. What then? Do you trade valuables from those accounts to a friend who trades them back to your main account? Great, you can now make almost 1M an hour and get consistent 24 hour lends of whatever you want! GEE WILLICKERS I WISH I COULD MAKE A MILLION GEEPEE AN HOUR MONSTER HUNTING! Even more if you PVP trick with all of those accounts (assuming you have the EP, which takes time to accumulate).

 

Oh, I can make more than that, and you completely forgot the FUN aspect of MHing. I don't know if you've noticed, but almost every single person on this thread who supports crashing actually ENJOYS MHing, which is a big motivator when deciding to crash. Do I skip out on having fun so Legolas2223344 can get his two solo Bandos kills? No.

 

Efficiency is not the be-all, end-all of MHing (or Runescape for that matter). It is a way to play the game that some people enjoy (including myself). So assuming that FUN is one of my motivators to monster hunt (which it is), where does the hacking come into play? For it to have any effect on whether or not I crash, I'd have to hack the accounts of all my competitors, which makes me giggle just thinking about how absurd that is.

 

So, again, how the [bleep] does hacking relate to crashing?

[Bladewing]

Even more off topic than hacking, but you could use the hacked accounts to dump junk from buying partyhats/divines etc.

[Sly_Wizard]

Also, i don't see how crashing someone benifits anyone else OTHER than you. The only way you justify crashing is by saying "its the most efficient way to do things", and i find that that's a pretty bad standard to be judging actions on, both in game and especially real life.

 

Likewise, not crashing someone only benefits the person I didn't crash, at my own cost.

 

Why is efficiency a bad standard? I am happier finding joy in efficiency rather than joy out of laziness.

 

Because some of the actions justified by saying "its more efficient" are just flat out rude, and some more extreme examples might be considered flat out unethical.

 

I'm sure it would be more profitable for you to crash, but if you feel that that you have to steal someone elses kill that they were already working on than most people are just going to feel that that's being unneccesarily greedy and is at the height of greediness. You really couldn't have just let someone finish their kill before taking the world? To be honest that just reflects upon how completely self centered you are if you can't settle for anything less than MAXIMUM efficiency and have to resort to taking away other people's enjoyment. Are you really losing that much by waiting a minute to let someone finish their kill and not waste their food+pots spent on taking out 1/3 of its hp? I mean you are already probably going to get every other kill on that world.

 

It's a game, nobody cares about ethics. Efficiency + Fun = Good. Crashing is efficient, and fun.

 

Except when it comes to scamming. Then that rationale seems to go right out the proverbial window.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Of course, you'll inevitably say, "But, Sly! Scamming is against the rules!", to which I reply "So what?". Imagine, if you will, that there was absolutely no rules against scamming in game. None what-so-ever. Now let's assume that someone decides to start a thread about why they scam others, how it's much more efficient to scam others than it is to take weeks, months or maybe even years trying to acquire an item through normal means and how they consider it fun. I can guarantee you with absolute certainty that the people using the whole "No one cares about ethics in a game... Efficiency/fun... Blah blah blah" lines would suddenly be singing a totally different tune, and they would more-or-less base their argument as to why the person who started the thread was in the wrong on the basis that his actions have a negative effect on the game play of others (*hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge*).

[Bladewing]

The problem with that argument is that scamming is a zero sum game. Crashing is not.

[Sly_Wizard]

The problem with that argument is that scamming is a zero sum game. Crashing is not.

 

And? That would make one worse the other, how? The answer is that it wouldn't, especially not within the confines that people here are trying to justify crashing (efficiency and fun), and especially not when you consider how the people crashing are justifying their actions regardless of the effect it has on another (it seems rather dishonest to only begin considering the effects that one action has on another when you're talking about scamming, but not crashing, as if crashing has no effect on anyone).

[Bladewing]

In scamming, for every 1 GP one person gains, the other loses 1 GP. This is called a zero sum game because the gains = losses. When a 138 crashes a 110, the gains made by the 138 and the rest of the RS economy far exceed the losses of the 110. This means that, overall, crashing is GOOD. Yeah it sucks if you were that 110, but everyone else in the game benefits.

 

Same reason why Amazon.com "crashing" bookstores is a good thing.

[Sly_Wizard]

The problem with that argument is that scamming is a zero sum game. Crashing is not.

 

And? That would make one worse the other, how? The answer is that it wouldn't, especially not within the confines that people here are trying to justify crashing (efficiency and fun), and especially not when you consider how the people crashing are justifying their actions regardless of the effects it has on another (it seems rather dishonest to only begin considering the effects that one action has on another when you're talking about scamming, but not crashing, as if crashing has no effect on anyone).

In scamming, for every 1 GP one person gains, the other loses 1 GP. This is called a zero sum game because the gains = losses. When a 138 crashes a 110, the gains made by the 138 and the rest of the RS economy far exceed the losses of the 110.

 

I know what a zero-sum game is, and it has absolutely no bearing on anything. It doesn't matter, because the people who crash don't not do it because it negatively affects another. They do it, regardless of the effect it has on another, because they can. I guarantee you that if crashing were a zero-sum game, that people would still crash. At any rate, should I be surprised how you didn't, and probably won't, address the central point of my post? Amazing how once the whole "rationalizing-away-an-action-based-on-efficiency/fun" angle gets challenged, it gets ignored, and irrelevant points get brought up instead.

 

...But the above is all moot anyway. It's a game, nobody cares about ethics :rolleyes:

[Bladewing]

Okay let me address EVERYTHING you wrote. You asked for it.

 

[hide]

And? That would make one worse the other, how?

A zero sum game is worse than a situation with positive net gains.

The answer is that it wouldn't,

Irrefutably wrong.

especially not within the confines that people here are trying to justify crashing (efficiency and fun)

Crashing is efficient, and for some people crashing is fun. You cannot deny this.

especially not when you consider how the people crashing are justifying their actions regardless of the effect it has on another (it seems rather dishonest to only begin considering the effects that one action has on another when you're talking about scamming, but not crashing, as if crashing has no effect on anyone).

No, we are not justifying them regardless of the negative effects. We are justifying them despite them, because the gains outweigh the losses. No one denies that when a 138 crashes a 110, the 110 incurs losses.

I know what a zero-sum game is, and it has absolutely no bearing on anything.

Obviously you don't know what it is, because it definitely has bearing on the comparison you drew between account hacking/scamming and crashing.

It doesn't matter, because the people who crash don't not do it because it negatively affects another. They do it, regardless of the effect it has on another, because they can.

Okay here's your big point, which is wrong. I do not crash people at spirit mages, zamorak, solo saradomin, solo armadyl, etc. I hop worlds. I crash(ed) (technically I don't do bandos anymore, but if I were to do it I WOULD crash no doubt) because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND AN OPEN WORLD THERE WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. No one has argued that crashing anywhere any time is a good thing.[/hide]

 

Oh, and I don't believe in morality or whatever you want to call that [cabbage] that your god wrote down for you.

[Madouge]

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.

 

This basically sums it up for me. I don't see why people think being at a boss first gives you a right to it.

 

Except when it comes to scamming. Then that rationale seems to go right out the proverbial window.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Of course, you'll inevitably say, "But, Sly! Scamming is against the rules!", to which I reply "So what?". Imagine, if you will, that there was absolutely no rules against scamming in game. None what-so-ever. Now let's assume that someone decides to start a thread about why they scam others, how it's much more efficient to scam others than it is to take weeks, months or maybe even years trying to acquire an item through normal means and how they consider it fun. I can guarantee you with absolute certainty that the people using the whole "No one cares about ethics in a game... Efficiency/fun... Blah blah blah" lines would suddenly be singing a totally different tune, and they would more-or-less base their argument as to why the person who started the thread was in the wrong on the basis that his actions have a negative effect on the game play of others (*hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge*).

 

If scamming weren't against the rules then I wouldn't object to people doing it, it would certainly be an interesting feature.

[A_Fiasco]

I definitely think that this thread now reflects the clear divide between those who believe Runescape was a game designed to be played efficiently, to excel in and to beat. To you the chase for efficiency overloads the humanitarian side of Runescape, none of you remember the guy who showed them the way to Falador when they were level 11,

 

Then on the other side we have the softer players, who believe in an etiquette and probably are playing the game for a more enjoyment factor, the kind who get excited over a 1m split or whatever..

 

I don't think that there is any point in further discussing this 'Elitist' thread as it has already served to divide the players who play for fun, in the essence of the game, and those who play for fun by being efficient and prolific in their beating of the game.

[Quyneax]

Oh, and I don't believe in morality or whatever you want to call that [cabbage] that your god wrote down for you.

Yup, same for me. Do you agree nobody has the right (right implies morals) to a spot, and the following is true?

 

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.

(not specifically to Bladewing after this)

People crash to be efficient; why do they want to be efficient? Because it's fun I suppose? Or because it is, overall, something they think is good? Either way, you have your "good" and that level 100 you crash has a different one, and they conflict. Who is to say one is better than the other?

 

I don't think you can say you have a right to a spot anymore than any other person, be they level 3 or 138. That doesn't mean you shouldn't crash, but you shouldn't call it a right.

(unless I misunderstood and your definition of right is quite different, but it doesn't seem so)

[Obtaurian]

Oh, and I don't believe in morality or whatever you want to call that [cabbage] that your god wrote down for you.

Yup, same for me. Do you agree nobody has the right (right implies morals) to a spot, and the following is true?

 

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.

(not specifically to Bladewing after this)

People crash to be efficient; why do they want to be efficient? Because it's fun I suppose? Or because it is, overall, something they think is good? Either way, you have your "good" and that level 100 you crash has a different one, and they conflict. Who is to say one is better than the other?

 

I don't think you can say you have a right to a spot anymore than any other person, be they level 3 or 138. That doesn't mean you shouldn't crash, but you shouldn't call it a right.

(unless I misunderstood and your definition of right is quite different, but it doesn't seem so)

 

He's saying that he has an inherent right to use or compete for that spot, not that he has a right to "own" it, if you will. Essentially, everyone has the same right to a spot, so who gets the spot is entirely up to who can stay there longer (which is affected by a variety of things, all of which are discussed in this thread).

 

I think you took the opposite message from what Troacctid wrote. :grin:

[Quyneax]

I think you took the opposite message from what Troacctid wrote. :grin:

Opposite or not depends entirely on how you read it. What I read from Troacctid's post: People compete. If you crash, and someone doesn't hop, cope with it, you decided to crash. That works the other way around as well. There really isn't a right to a spot (again, because right implies morals); this is where I may have read something other than what Troacctid posted. Or that's what I think you wrote about what you thought I wrote.

[Obtaurian]

I think you took the opposite message from what Troacctid wrote. :grin:

Opposite or not depends entirely on how you read it. What I read from Troacctid's post: People compete. If you crash, and someone doesn't hop, cope with it, you decided to crash. That works the other way around as well. There really isn't a right to a spot (again, because right implies morals); this is where I may have read something other than what Troacctid posted. Or that's what I think you wrote about what you thought I wrote.

 

In this context, right means freedom (as in Jagex does not restrict you from accessing every area in the game as long as you fulfill the requirements). It's a technical right rather than a moral right.

[Quyneax]

I think you took the opposite message from what Troacctid wrote. :grin:

Opposite or not depends entirely on how you read it. What I read from Troacctid's post: People compete. If you crash, and someone doesn't hop, cope with it, you decided to crash. That works the other way around as well. There really isn't a right to a spot (again, because right implies morals); this is where I may have read something other than what Troacctid posted. Or that's what I think you wrote about what you thought I wrote.

 

In this context, right means freedom (as in Jagex does not restrict you from accessing every area in the game as long as you fulfill the requirements). It's a technical right rather than a moral right.

Hmmm, I see. Never seen it used like that. That's why I dislike sociology/philosophy books so much; it seems they always use words way differently than non-experts (modern, for one). Thanks for clearing that up.

[Troacctid]

Okay let me address EVERYTHING you wrote. You asked for it.

 

[hide]

And? That would make one worse the other, how?

A zero sum game is worse than a situation with positive net gains.

The answer is that it wouldn't,

Irrefutably wrong.

especially not within the confines that people here are trying to justify crashing (efficiency and fun)

Crashing is efficient, and for some people crashing is fun. You cannot deny this.

especially not when you consider how the people crashing are justifying their actions regardless of the effect it has on another (it seems rather dishonest to only begin considering the effects that one action has on another when you're talking about scamming, but not crashing, as if crashing has no effect on anyone).

No, we are not justifying them regardless of the negative effects. We are justifying them despite them, because the gains outweigh the losses. No one denies that when a 138 crashes a 110, the 110 incurs losses.

I know what a zero-sum game is, and it has absolutely no bearing on anything.

Obviously you don't know what it is, because it definitely has bearing on the comparison you drew between account hacking/scamming and crashing.

It doesn't matter, because the people who crash don't not do it because it negatively affects another. They do it, regardless of the effect it has on another, because they can.

Okay here's your big point, which is wrong. I do not crash people at spirit mages, zamorak, solo saradomin, solo armadyl, etc. I hop worlds. I crash(ed) (technically I don't do bandos anymore, but if I were to do it I WOULD crash no doubt) because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND AN OPEN WORLD THERE WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. No one has argued that crashing anywhere any time is a good thing.[/hide]

 

Oh, and I don't believe in morality or whatever you want to call that [cabbage] that your god wrote down for you.

You've got to stop feeding the troll, dude.

 

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.

 

This basically sums it up for me. I don't see why people think being at a boss first gives you a right to it.

:thumbup:

[Hamtaro]

To all of you "efficiency players"who need max xp or gp/hr, please do the game a favor and log off. For good. It's not going to kill you to lose 3 minutes to check other worlds.

 

[spoiler=How I picture "efficiency" players:]

 

I find this offensive.

 

Yeah. As per usual, the people who hate crashing are the first to throw stones.

Don't get me wrong, I think crashing is okay as long as an attempt is made to find an empty world. If not, crash away. I still hate efficiency-obsessed players, though. Honestly, 3 minutes won't affect you at all.

[Troacctid]

Don't get me wrong, I think crashing is okay as long as an attempt is made to find an empty world. If not, crash away. I still hate efficiency-obsessed players, though. Honestly, 3 minutes won't affect you at all.

3 minutes will affect either player equally. If it's so easy, then you hop.

[Hamtaro]

Don't get me wrong, I think crashing is okay as long as an attempt is made to find an empty world. If not, crash away. I still hate efficiency-obsessed players, though. Honestly, 3 minutes won't affect you at all.

3 minutes will affect either player equally. If it's so easy, then you hop.

I don't boss hunt often and I've never been crashed personally. All I'm saying is that, some of the crashers here are claiming they hate having to crash, but they do so out of necessity for a spot (especially at Bandos). Just show some courtesy and attempt to hop, that's all I ask. The players being crashed had to find an open world already (thus already spent the 3+ minutes looking), so why can't you?

 

Crashing as a last resort is fine. Crashing just to be a [bleep] or because you "need" MAX gp/hr, not so much.

[Troacctid]

Don't get me wrong, I think crashing is okay as long as an attempt is made to find an empty world. If not, crash away. I still hate efficiency-obsessed players, though. Honestly, 3 minutes won't affect you at all.

3 minutes will affect either player equally. If it's so easy, then you hop.

I don't boss hunt often and I've never been crashed personally. All I'm saying is that, some of the crashers here are claiming they hate having to crash, but they do so out of necessity for a spot (especially at Bandos). Just show some courtesy and attempt to hop, that's all I ask. The players being crashed had to find an open world already (thus already spent the 3+ minutes looking), so why can't you?

 

Crashing as a last resort is fine. Crashing just to be a [bleep] or because you "need" MAX gp/hr, not so much.

Okay then, you show some courtesy to me and hop when I get there if that's what you think. If you were willing to spend all that time searching around, I trust you're willing to do it again.

 

Why is it rude to crash, but not rude to stay when someone crashes you? Seems like a double standard to me.

[Hamtaro]

Don't get me wrong, I think crashing is okay as long as an attempt is made to find an empty world. If not, crash away. I still hate efficiency-obsessed players, though. Honestly, 3 minutes won't affect you at all.

3 minutes will affect either player equally. If it's so easy, then you hop.

I don't boss hunt often and I've never been crashed personally. All I'm saying is that, some of the crashers here are claiming they hate having to crash, but they do so out of necessity for a spot (especially at Bandos). Just show some courtesy and attempt to hop, that's all I ask. The players being crashed had to find an open world already (thus already spent the 3+ minutes looking), so why can't you?

 

Crashing as a last resort is fine. Crashing just to be a [bleep] or because you "need" MAX gp/hr, not so much.

Okay then, you show some courtesy to me and hop when I get there if that's what you think. If you were willing to spend all that time searching around, I trust you're willing to do it again.

 

Why is it rude to crash, but not rude to stay when someone crashes you? Seems like a double standard to me.

 

First part is just, well, wrong. Those being crashed already spent time trying to find a world, and some [bleep]s just walks in and take it? I'm sorry but that's absurd, at best. The only courtesy I would show to those crashing would be "Would you please hop?" If not, I remember that people in general are jerks and suck it up. To those being crashed: leave or hop. Boss rooms are meant to be competitive, hence, multi-combat.

 

As a slightly more obscure example, let's say you're killing ghosts/skeletons in the SoS. You know this is an unpopular place to train. However, someone walks in and takes all the kills, even though there are 150+ worlds that are free. How is that not being a complete jerk when you KNOW there are going to be at least a few empty worlds (such as DKs or TDs, not Bandos)?

 

Also, it's not rude to stay, because those being crashed help you get kills faster if you can do the most damage every time (as from my example from yesterday).

[Troacctid]

First part is just, well, wrong. Those being crashed already spent time trying to find a world, and some [bleep]s just walks in and take it? I'm sorry but that's absurd, at best. The only courtesy I would show to those crashing would be "Would you please hop?" If not, I remember that people in general are jerks and suck it up. To those being crashed: leave or hop. Boss rooms are meant to be competitive, hence, multi-combat.

I could just as well point out that Player A has had their kills and it's time for them to give Player B a turn.

 

As a slightly more obscure example, let's say you're killing ghosts/skeletons in the SoS. You know this is an unpopular place to train. However, someone walks in and takes all the kills, even though there are 150+ worlds that are free. How is that not being a complete jerk when you KNOW there are going to be at least a few empty worlds (such as DKs or TDs, not Bandos)?

Because there's enough spawns for two people, presumably. :ugeek:

[Hamtaro]

First part is just, well, wrong. Those being crashed already spent time trying to find a world, and some [bleep]s just walks in and take it? I'm sorry but that's absurd, at best. The only courtesy I would show to those crashing would be "Would you please hop?" If not, I remember that people in general are jerks and suck it up. To those being crashed: leave or hop. Boss rooms are meant to be competitive, hence, multi-combat.

I could just as well point out that Player A has had their kills and it's time for them to give Player B a turn.

 

As a slightly more obscure example, let's say you're killing ghosts/skeletons in the SoS. You know this is an unpopular place to train. However, someone walks in and takes all the kills, even though there are 150+ worlds that are free. How is that not being a complete jerk when you KNOW there are going to be at least a few empty worlds (such as DKs or TDs, not Bandos)?

Because there's enough spawns for two people, presumably. :ugeek:

You raise a good point, but what if Player A had showed up only 2-3 kills before? Chances are if you're crashing, you're going to stay a lot longer. So, no, in that instance (and most likely most of them) they did not have their full "turn" at the boss.

 

takes all the kills

:rolleyes:

Anyway, at TDs, certain spots are better than others and at DKs, two individuals may both be going after the same one (or same two if hybriding).

[Troacctid]

You raise a good point, but what if Player A had showed up only 2-3 kills before? Chances are if you're crashing, you're going to stay a lot longer. So, no, in that instance (and most likely most of them) they did not have their full "turn" at the boss.

*shrug*

 

Again, you can just as easily say "What if Player B had already been hopping for 5 minutes?" It still boils down to both players having an equal opportunity to choose whether they want to stay and fight or leave and try a different world.

[SirIzenhime]

In this last exchange...I'm siding with Studio. Your arguments are basically repeating what studio said, except you're using it to defend crashing instead. Have a little shred of common courtesy, hop a few times, and then crash if that's what it comes down to. Don't crash and say they could just hop instead of you. That's just being a [bleep].