An Elitist's View on Crashing

[Bladewing]

But the question is... do you really want to be thought of in a similar light to the United States?

 

Yes.

 

Then keep doin' exactly what you're doin'.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's not my thing. If I'm slaying and the monster area is already supporting the maximum number of people, I'll hop, because I personally don't enjoy causing people frustration. I can see how the idea of overpowering and forcing someone's actions could be fun, so more power to you :D

most of the "proponents" for crashing generally aren't in strong support of crashing slayer spots, particularly in single combat lol.

[Pinata]

What I don't understand is that if a 110 could go RC or kill monsters for herbs, than why can't the level 138 go kill other monsters for herbs to.

 

Also by the logic of the first page of this thread, then the no life argument is reasonable.

 

I could say your a no-life for crashing me because you are level 138, with all the best gear you can buy, so most likely you've put over 150+ Days into RS minimum, most likely you're around 300-400 days.

Then I could go about and say go to your job/class room if you have either of those, and have everyone fill out this survey, with the following question. If I put over half a year to an entire year of my life in the past 6-10 years sitting in front of a computer screen playing an MMORPG, would you consider me a no life.

 

That uses the same logic as the 1st post of this thread.

 

I'm not trying to be mean, I myself have put 170+ days into RS, and not even close to 138CB. Im just stating the view of an irl Elitist.

 

Could make the argument though, that people with office jobs have stared at computer screens for almost 60% of their life. lol

[Obtaurian]

What I don't understand is that if a 110 could go RC or kill monsters for herbs, than why can't the level 138 go kill other monsters for herbs to.

 

Because the 138 has the capacity to make far better money elsewhere. :huh:

 

The rest of your post is an attempt at psychoanalysis that makes little sense. You completely missed the point of this thread.

[Pinata]

All that the first post of this thread, is simply his view of why he has the right to crash.

Limited Recourses, means that he has to fight off others to gain those recourses, and he will most likely succeed, because he is in an overall better position for the harvest the recourses, and therefore has the right to crash.

 

The truth is though the he does have the right to crash, because it isn't against the rules of the game. The level 110 also has the right to attempt to crash the 138.

 

Someone earlier in this thread who was pro-crashing mentioned an alternative that doesn't involve being crashed for the lower level.

 

Now, I'm trying to say maybe that person should listen to his own advice.

 

Most likely if you do crash someone they will put up some sort of resistance, and you'll still lose out on being perfectly efficient.

 

The thread owner also states how he doesn't crash people that are better than him, because they have the right to that spot. When in reality no-one has the right to that spot expect Jagex employees.

[Obtaurian]

I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Viv]

ima crash u when ur soloing skeletal horde boss

 

lol jk :D

 

anyway the reason people dont crash people equal or better than them is because it would be a waste of time if htey did...it would slow both people down but someone w/o overloads and w/o a chaotic weapon versus someone with thiers a clear advantage whos gunna get the kills lol.

 

i crash people at warped tortiose b4 i blocked em cuz only 2 and needed high pop world..........only hoppd if they were killing efficiently.

[TheAncient]

EDIT: wrong thread. sorry

[Bladewing]

All that the first post of this thread, is simply his view of why he has the right to crash.

Limited Recourses, means that he has to fight off others to gain those recourses, and he will most likely succeed, because he is in an overall better position for the harvest the recourses, and therefore has the right to crash.

 

The truth is though the he does have the right to crash, because it isn't against the rules of the game. The level 110 also has the right to attempt to crash the 138.

absolutely. i think that's one of the points that those against crashing have yet to consider: why, if crashing were not expected to be a factor in the game, would there be bosses in multicombat zones in non-ls worlds?

Someone earlier in this thread who was pro-crashing mentioned an alternative that doesn't involve being crashed for the lower level.

 

Now, I'm trying to say maybe that person should listen to his own advice.

 

could you clarify what you are referring to?

 

Most likely if you do crash someone they will put up some sort of resistance, and you'll still lose out on being perfectly efficient.

 

The thread owner also states how he doesn't crash people that are better than him, because they have the right to that spot. When in reality no-one has the right to that spot expect Jagex employees.

generally we are referring to "hot" areas like bandos. if a 138 crashes a 110, it means the 138 gets probably at least 90% of the kills, at roughly 25% more kills an hour, while using roughly 50% the supplies. other situations like tribrid dks there is really nothing a 110 soloing rex with fire wave can do to fight back besides shoot rex. the 138 is geared to kill all three dagannoths.

 

the reason the thread owner doesn't crash people better than him is because he cannot crash them and there is no logical reason to try to crash him. they don't have the right to that spot, but they can fight for it better than he can.

[stonewall337]

It depends on levels too. A level 138 trying to crash another 138 is probably being an ass. A level 138 crashing a level 96 is probably trying to find a good world. Difference there.

 

And no matter how much "resistance" a lower level tries to put up at bandos, or DKS, I won't care. They'll be tanking more damage, and I've tanked all 3 kings anyway. They also won't be stealing any of my kills.

 

Its also more effective and efficient for a lower level to do things like herb runs for their herbs, since higher levels have higher stats (duh) and normally better gear.

 

The "scaring people away from picnic table" argument is absurd. Please don't make me tear it to pieces? There are so many differences.

 

A better example would be a library computer. The main difference there is a time limit, and in that case, first come first serve is NORMAL. Sometimes FCFS is accepted, and normal, otherplaces, its not. If I have an appointment, and you are a walk in, it doesn't matter if you were first. I go first. See the differences?

[MerchantInTheDark]

I agree you earned the "right" with your hours of training, but my perspective is that common courtesy can be a good thing too. I don't tend to crush people just because I can.

[Racer434]

ima crash u when ur soloing skeletal horde boss

 

lol jk :D

 

anyway the reason people dont crash people equal or better than them is because it would be a waste of time if htey did...it would slow both people down but someone w/o overloads and w/o a chaotic weapon versus someone with thiers a clear advantage whos gunna get the kills lol.

 

i crash people at warped tortiose b4 i blocked em cuz only 2 and needed high pop world..........only hoppd if they were killing efficiently.

 

People sometimes try and crash me at warped torts, you would not believe how many times maxed players have hopped to me at 105 cb. In that case normally my faster 10/10 crystal bow with void and dark bow (spec) will out do anyone except people with chaotic. Especially with the low defense that torts have.

[SirIzenhime]

a crystal bow and dark bow is beating whips? I'd love to see that.

[stonewall337]

ima crash u when ur soloing skeletal horde boss

 

lol jk :D

 

anyway the reason people dont crash people equal or better than them is because it would be a waste of time if htey did...it would slow both people down but someone w/o overloads and w/o a chaotic weapon versus someone with thiers a clear advantage whos gunna get the kills lol.

 

i crash people at warped tortiose b4 i blocked em cuz only 2 and needed high pop world..........only hoppd if they were killing efficiently.

 

People sometimes try and crash me at warped torts, you would not believe how many times maxed players have hopped to me at 105 cb. In that case normally my faster 10/10 crystal bow with void and dark bow (spec) will out do anyone except people with chaotic. Especially with the low defense that torts have.

I call bull to this. I could beat you with a dscimmy. There is no way void range beats out whip DPS, even against low def monsters.

[Troacctid]

I agree you earned the "right" with your hours of training, but my perspective is that common courtesy can be a good thing too. I don't tend to crush people just because I can.

There's nothing discourteous about crashing.

[Assume Nothing]

Okay. Arguing in circles doesn't work.

 

Discussion; If no one crashed any worlds on RuneScape, what would happen? To the Economy, to the society, to PvM and to gameplay in general.

[Bladewing]

i would make a merchant clan that buys out all bandos armors, and have members of my clan monopolize the bandos spawns? i guess lol.

 

edit: no crashing is an unstable equilibrium, so since there are no incentives preventing an individual from switching to the dominant strategy, the correct answer to your question is: "if no one crashed in any worlds, someone would crash".

[aspeeder]

i would make a merchant clan that buys out all bandos armors, and have members of my clan monopolize the bandos spawns? i guess lol.

 

edit: no crashing is an unstable equilibrium, so since there are no incentives preventing an individual from switching to the dominant strategy, the correct answer to your question is: "if no one crashed in any worlds, someone would crash".

Nash Equilibrium, no matter what the other person does or thinks of you it's best to crash than not to crash.

[Sir_Kurity]

Its like crashing someone in runescape.

 

In other words, [cabbage] happens.

Arrogant trolls should have over 1300+ total level.

 

OT: Crashing for a limited resource is fine. Crashing "for lols" is just stupid.

How is it arrogant?

 

I've come to accept that this game has competition involved, and that each player has been crashed, or has been the crasher, at some point in there RS lives.

 

Its simply the way the game works. Most skills, and combat, work on "limited" resources.

 

--------------------

 

Also i love how you picked on total level, having an opinion has no level requirement. One shouldn't have to waste ones life away on useless 99's in order to have an opinion on the game.

[Assume Nothing]

People seem to assert there are no reasons to crash. That's simply untrue, unfounded and false. You either crash, or don't take a spot at some places. Goodluck getting a world at Bandos at peak hours if you don't crash.

 

EDIT - Well, seeing as previous posts were removed.. I'll remove the first part of my post

[TheAncient]

Okay. Arguing in circles doesn't work.

 

Discussion; If no one crashed any worlds on RuneScape, what would happen? To the Economy, to the society, to PvM and to gameplay in general.

 

Society would become less catty because less incidence of flaming and hassolish behavior

PvM would become a huge pain because of inability to find worlds and having to hop forever. Profitability will be heavily influenced by competition, so you'll probably see a lot more people making money in alternative ways.

The effect on item prices would be hard to say, and depends on the context.

 

For situations where the worlds are already saturated and have one person killing almost all the time (i.e. Bandos), less Bandos items would be coming into the game so supply decreases. For situations where the worlds aren't already saturated, they will probably become more saturated, increasing supply.

[Obtaurian]

The same quantity of bandos items would be created as we can assume someone will jump in as the other person leaves regardless

 

No, at the moment you already have high level players on every world (because many of them have to crash). If there wasn't crashing, less efficient players would hog worlds, so you'd still have people there 24/7, but the number of kills would significantly decrease.

[Tim]

The same quantity of bandos items would be created as we can assume someone will jump in as the other person leaves regardless

 

No, at the moment you already have high level players on every world (because many of them have to crash). If there wasn't crashing, less efficient players would hog worlds, so you'd still have people there 24/7, but the number of kills would significantly decrease.

But what about those with half decent stats who either want to kill Bosses for fun or to just collect one piece of equipment to help pay for something? Yeah I know Crashing happens, you leveled your stats yatta yatta [cabbage] [cabbage] [cabbage], but you have to admit, players at my level with an average offence (120cb) are going to see bosses as crap because they cant even have a chance to try it. and same goes for the next gen of runescape players.

 

 

I know High levels probably worked their arse off to get maxed (or botted), but that doesn't mean you have overall rights in how the game should function. Yes you deserve those kills, but so does every other player. Including those trying to learn to boss hunt so when they DO get good enough stats, they dont get raped or used but some lazy player who forces them to tank while they take the kill.

[SirHartlar]

I know High levels probably worked their arse off to get maxed (or botted), but that doesn't mean you have overall rights in how the game should function. Yes you deserve those kills, but so does every other player. Including those trying to learn to boss hunt so when they DO get good enough stats, they dont get raped or used but some lazy player who forces them to tank while they take the kill.

 

Seeing as Jagex themselves have come out and said that people should "Get big or get out", and that there are a limited number of boss spawns per world I would say that, yeah, high levelled players do have overall rights in how the game should function.

[Obtaurian]

The same quantity of bandos items would be created as we can assume someone will jump in as the other person leaves regardless

 

No, at the moment you already have high level players on every world (because many of them have to crash). If there wasn't crashing, less efficient players would hog worlds, so you'd still have people there 24/7, but the number of kills would significantly decrease.

But what about those with half decent stats who either want to kill Bosses for fun or to just collect one piece of equipment to help pay for something? Yeah I know Crashing happens, you leveled your stats yatta yatta [cabbage] [cabbage] [cabbage], but you have to admit, players at my level with an average offence (120cb) are going to see bosses as crap because they cant even have a chance to try it. and same goes for the next gen of runescape players.

 

 

I know High levels probably worked their arse off to get maxed (or botted), but that doesn't mean you have overall rights in how the game should function. Yes you deserve those kills, but so does every other player. Including those trying to learn to boss hunt so when they DO get good enough stats, they dont get raped or used but some lazy player who forces them to tank while they take the kill.

 

All of your concerns have been responded to in this thread. Do a little reading.

 

Also, what SirHartlar said.

[TheAncient]

Not to sound mean, but...

 

Even in the real world, opinions are opinions are opinions. Everyone has them and feels like they should have weight. But they don't really matter unless you have the power to enforce them. One example would be how blizzard/activision treats its players. At least in the short run, they can farm as much profit off of their players as they want, even if it's morally and ethically bankrupt to do so, and get plenty of crap for it.

 

Fundamentally, we just have two opposing opinions. You say that the person who gets there first deserves the spot. I say the person who can utilize the spot more efficiently deserves the spot. Both are opinions, but we're the ones who have the power to make the final decision. Most other argument is just rationalization of opinion - neither holds any fundamental truth.