An Elitist's View on Crashing

[Assume Nothing]

This thread is degrading. Stop quoting people out of context and resorting to personal attacks, and present a logical argument that actually holds some water.

 

Mining is actually a better example than monster hunting.

 

Who owns the spot, a level three who happened to log in first, that has 60 mining, or a level 138, with 90 mining? Nobody owns the spot. You got to fight for it, because resources are limited, and wants/needs are unlimited. Unless JaGex releases more Instanced areas, crashing will always exist.

 

The Economic Problem is why Crashing still exists. Crashing for fun, however, is another story.

 

EDIT - Ethics don't exist on RuneScape. Don't even try and start with the pixel argument.

[Blyaunte]

And what I'm saying is that instead of fighting all the time or staying all the time and saying you have a right to fighting or staying, just rotate between activities so that everybody has a chance at it.

 

Like I said, I think this is unnecessarily self-sacrificing. I mean, there's nothing wrong with doing it, but it's just not behavior that economics would label as rational

 

And whether or not we label it as "entitlement" or not bears little relevance to the actual validity of the action. Putting labels on things doesn't really change the moral validity of them

 

No -- but by avoiding or otherwise ignoring such labels, you deem yourself not responsible for the actions that you take, or the consequences that result from such actions.

 

But hey -- you've already indicated that you're going to continue not taking responsibility for anything you do anyways, so why worry, right?

:rolleyes:

[Bladewing]

Obviously, you have deliberately missed the point once again -- you're efforts at trying to justify your anti-social behaviour is amusing me, so I will keep pressing until you simply concede my point:

 

Game theory is about many things -- but mainly it's about using how one plays a game to predict how one will behave in the real world.

 

Obviously, your efforts here to exert your own ego speaks to something within your own personality, most likely a deficiency, that you need to overcome through game play. As such, you make an effort to enforce your own personal interests above those of others, by using your pixelated strengths to your advantage.

 

In short, you're compensating for something ... :rolleyes:

what, exactly, is the point? can you explicitly state what you want game theory applied to? i thought this was discussing crashing. i posted a perfect game of crashing.

 

and what's with the [sic] part?

 

grammar nazis around the world would have you know that it should have been "there are only two skills".

[SirIzenhime]

Oh, it's a grammar thing....what does [sic] stand for though?

[Bladewing]

sic is latin for thus, and you put it in brackets inside the quotation when the original source of the quote had incorrect grammar/spelling. it's to show the reader that the the author did not make the mistake, but rather the quoted source.

 

as in "it was spelled thus"

[xpx]

And what I'm saying is that instead of fighting all the time or staying all the time and saying you have a right to fighting or staying, just rotate between activities so that everybody has a chance at it.

Your sole reason of being there is to make money. If you are to be nice and not crash, you will make less money for that other person to be able to make more money. Less is more? Don't think so, atleast in this situation.

 

By the way, everybody does have a chance. Crashing someone doesn't mean they are unable to do the things they want, it just means they will have to find an empty spot/someone else to crash. You are just looking at this from a kindergarten 'sharing is caring' point of view. We are not all immortal. As I said, the elitist view isn't about ruining someone elses gaming experience, rather enhancing yours. We don't crash so that other people wouldn't get a chance of doing what they want, rather because we want to be able to do what we want(and it's rude, yes, but not as bad as spending 40 minutes looking for an empty spot).

[Blyaunte]

There is [sic] only two skills you can crash...mining, and hunter ...

 

... and yet there are numerous other spots one can crash and people often do -- just to be spiteful and ignorant.

 

Pest Control is a perfect example of this -- there are a number of people who, while botting, place themselves in the landing craft in a non-designated Pest Control world, so that they don't get random events, and they can set up their auto-bots and alch-away undisturbed.

 

Heaven forbid that they should encounter a group of people who, you know, actually want to use the boat for it's designated purpose, like -- weird I know -- actually playing the mini-game. *gasp* :ohnoes:

 

But no -- when they encounter such groups, they merely sabotage the game until those players leave ...

 

This kind of thing just keeps going around and around and around ...

 

That had nothing to do with the statement you quoted (and what's with the [sic] part?),

 

It has EVERYTHING to do with your statement -- see below.

 

[sic] means you made a grammatical error: "There *IS* only two skills ..." should read, "There ARE only ..."

 

I was talking about skilling skills, NOT combat skills and minigames. He was comparing crashing a boss, to crashing a tree, which doesn't work in this game. I stopped reading after your first line, because your post has no relevance to mine.

 

.. and therefore you missed a perfectly made point.

 

It's a CYCLE. Someone crashes someone who crashes someone who crashes someone. Eventually, you end up with someone who decides to raise his combat to "elite" status by alching in a boat at Pest Control and, for the sake of being spiteful because he's been crashed all the way down the line, he decides to conduct a "crash" of his own.

 

How we play the game demonstrates to others how they should play the game. Being rude and pushing other people around only passes it down the line to the next person.

[TheAncient]

It's a CYCLE. Someone crashes someone who crashes someone who crashes someone. Eventually, you end up with someone who decides to raise his combat to "elite" status by alching in a boat at Pest Control and, for the sake of being spiteful because he's been crashed all the way down the line, he decides to conduct a "crash" of his own.

 

 

While I am partially responsible for someone else's reaction to me, I am not responsible for the actions they choose to partake in because of those reactions. For example, if I annoy someone, and as a result they shoot someone else out of rageit, should I be punished for the shooting? By law, no.

 

Also, crashing things like PC I agree is bad - but the relevance to monster hunting is really quite small. To connect the two is, as I pointed out, a slippery slope.

[SirIzenhime]

There is [sic] only two skills you can crash...mining, and hunter ...

 

... and yet there are numerous other spots one can crash and people often do -- just to be spiteful and ignorant.

 

Pest Control is a perfect example of this -- there are a number of people who, while botting, place themselves in the landing craft in a non-designated Pest Control world, so that they don't get random events, and they can set up their auto-bots and alch-away undisturbed.

 

Heaven forbid that they should encounter a group of people who, you know, actually want to use the boat for it's designated purpose, like -- weird I know -- actually playing the mini-game. *gasp* :ohnoes:

 

But no -- when they encounter such groups, they merely sabotage the game until those players leave ...

 

This kind of thing just keeps going around and around and around ...

 

That had nothing to do with the statement you quoted (and what's with the [sic] part?),

 

It has EVERYTHING to do with your statement -- see below.

 

[sic] means you made a grammatical error: "There *IS* only two skills ..." should read, "There ARE only ..."

 

I was talking about skilling skills, NOT combat skills and minigames. He was comparing crashing a boss, to crashing a tree, which doesn't work in this game. I stopped reading after your first line, because your post has no relevance to mine.

 

.. and therefore you missed a perfectly made point.

 

It's a CYCLE. Someone crashes someone who crashes someone who crashes someone. Eventually, you end up with someone who decides to raise his combat to "elite" status by alching in a boat at Pest Control and, for the sake of being spiteful because he's been crashed all the way down the line, he decides to conduct a "crash" of his own.

 

How we play the game demonstrates to others how they should play the game. Being rude and pushing other people around only passes it down the line to the next person.

 

You missed my point...my SOLE point was...you cannot compare crashing bosses to crashing a yew tree...because crashing a yew tree does not work in this game. There wasn't any abstract meaning to it...it was a simple...literal point. You cannot crash trees, therefore you cannot compare it to crashing bosses. I wasn't talking about Morals or the grand cycle of things...simply the relationship between crashing trees....and crashing bandos.

[Blyaunte]

Obviously, you have deliberately missed the point once again -- you're efforts at trying to justify your anti-social behaviour is amusing me, so I will keep pressing until you simply concede my point:

 

Game theory is about many things -- but mainly it's about using how one plays a game to predict how one will behave in the real world.

 

Obviously, your efforts here to exert your own ego speaks to something within your own personality, most likely a deficiency, that you need to overcome through game play. As such, you make an effort to enforce your own personal interests above those of others, by using your pixelated strengths to your advantage.

 

In short, you're compensating for something ... :rolleyes:

what, exactly, is the point? can you explicitly state what you want game theory applied to? i thought this was discussing crashing. i posted a perfect game of crashing.

 

*sigh*

 

Ever heard of the "Nash equilibrium" in game theory? It applies to economics which, in-game, right now, is a subject that I know is near and dear to your own mercenary heart.

 

If you take into consideration the manner in which a group of people each individually make the same decision, it becomes impossible for anyone else to make any OTHER decision and survive within that economic environment.

 

The more cut-throat and dog-eat-dog you make the economy, it is going to become even more so.

-.-

[strilmus]

Like I said, if you do want to crash or hold a spot for an extended period of time, if nobody can stop you you've got the spot and "won", but if the money and the self benefit is worth more to you than other people, then I can't really see how you have any right to it

 

And this isn't even about blind morals, it's just plain human decency

 

Or whatever left of it there is to be had

 

Granted, since you see this as a competition everybody else would be seen as competitors

 

But some people are just trying to get by and are there to enjoy the game for what it is

 

And then you just kind of elbow past them and declare yourself king

 

Maybe they were right, if they don't want to compete then they shouldn't play that game anymore

 

Maybe that's why people stopped playing this game in the first place

 

(aside from the others that left after the removal of PvP because there was nothing to compete for anymore)

 

I just find this winner/loser dynamic kind of self destructive

 

And the goal is to make the game unplayable for everybody

[Blyaunte]

Like I said, if you do want to crash or hold a spot for an extended period of time, if nobody can stop you you've got the spot and "won", but if the money and the self benefit is worth more to you than other people, then I can't really see how you have any right to it

 

And this isn't even about blind morals, it's just plain human decency

 

Or whatever left of it there is to be had

 

Granted, since you see this as a competition everybody else would be seen as competitors

 

But some people are just trying to get by and are there to enjoy the game for what it is

 

And then you just kind of elbow past them and declare yourself king

 

Maybe they were right, if they don't want to compete then they shouldn't play that game anymore

 

Maybe that's why people stopped playing this game in the first place

 

(aside from the others that left after the removal of PvP because there was nothing to compete for anymore)

 

I just find this winner/loser dynamic kind of self destructive

 

And the goal is to make the game unplayable for everybody

 

Hear hear!

 

But you left out "It's JAGEX's fault!"

 

:rolleyes:

[krimi]

I think human decency is derived from blind morals...

[xpx]

Like I said, if you do want to crash or hold a spot for an extended period of time, if nobody can stop you you've got the spot and "won", but if the money and the self benefit is worth more to you than other people, then I can't really see how you have any right to it

 

And this isn't even about blind morals, it's just plain human decency

 

Or whatever left of it there is to be had

 

Granted, since you see this as a competition everybody else would be seen as competitors

 

But some people are just trying to get by and are there to enjoy the game for what it is

 

And then you just kind of elbow past them and declare yourself king

 

Maybe they were right, if they don't want to compete then they shouldn't play that game anymore

 

Maybe that's why people stopped playing this game in the first place

 

(aside from the others that left after the removal of PvP because there was nothing to compete for anymore)

 

I just find this winner/loser dynamic kind of self destructive

 

And the goal is to make the game unplayable for everybody

Well, this is your opinion and you are completely entitled to it.

 

However, there are quite alot of people who don't see things the way you do. What you may see as self-destructive behavior, others might see as innovative thinking. After all, competing for your chances levels the playing field for everyone. The person who you crash on one day might come back and crash you on another day, thus giving both of them incentive to improve themselves. As a side effect of this welcome competition and thrill(yes), the economy improves, and by making alot of money, those same elitists bring down the prices of high end gear so others can reach those levels more easily. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being nice, but in the end of the day, when the happiness of others comes from the unhappiness of yourself, you are doing something wrong. Most of us just don't have all life to play around, we want to achieve our goals as fast and enjoyably as possible, and if some small part of it comes from making someone else unhappy in some situation, we can live with it. After all, you being nice to someone doesn't automatically guarantee he is also going to be nice- who is there to say that the person you decide not to crash didn't crash someone else for the spot?

[Sir_Kurity]

Like I said, if you do want to crash or hold a spot for an extended period of time, if nobody can stop you you've got the spot and "won", but if the money and the self benefit is worth more to you than other people, then I can't really see how you have any right to it

 

Well, that guy with an addy picks self benefit isnt woth more than my self benefit.

 

If i purposely don't crash him, im harming myself for the benefit of others, and i just don't care enough about my fellow peers to do that.

[i_trollz_u]

Like I said, if you do want to crash or hold a spot for an extended period of time, if nobody can stop you you've got the spot and "won", but if the money and the self benefit is worth more to you than other people, then I can't really see how you have any right to it

 

Well, that guy with an addy picks self benefit isnt woth more than my self benefit.

 

If i purposely don't crash him, im harming myself for the benefit of others, and i just don't care enough about my fellow peers to do that.

 

Which is why people quit and RS becomes more unpopular, because no one enjoys listening to 138's say "get maxed or GTFO" when you're just trying to have fun.

 

Let GWD and every non-grinding/semi-fun activity become only playable by maxed players, because people who haven't grinded their lives away don't deserve to play them right?

 

Too bad no one cares enough to spend half their life grinding just to be able to compete with [wagon] at GWD, which results in quitting, and the community ends up becoming even more [bleep]ed up and filled only with people that have the mentality that anyone who doesn't have a yellow or red combat level by their name is unimportant and can go kill themselves.

 

Does no one else notice that the average level of players has become like 20 lvls higher since a few years ago but the overall population has seen on a sharp decline?

[Danqazmlp]

Well, this is your opinion and you are completely entitled to it.

 

However, there are quite alot of people who don't see things the way you do. What you may see as self-destructive behavior, others might see as innovative thinking. After all, competing for your chances levels the playing field for everyone. The person who you crash on one day might come back and crash you on another day, thus giving both of them incentive to improve themselves. As a side effect of this welcome competition and thrill(yes), the economy improves, and by making alot of money, those same elitists bring down the prices of high end gear so others can reach those levels more easily. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being nice, but in the end of the day, when the happiness of others comes from the unhappiness of yourself, you are doing something wrong. Most of us just don't have all life to play around, we want to achieve our goals as fast and enjoyably as possible, and if some small part of it comes from making someone else unhappy in some situation, we can live with it. After all, you being nice to someone doesn't automatically guarantee he is also going to be nice- who is there to say that the person you decide not to crash didn't crash someone else for the spot?

 

 

Making others happy should make you happy though. Being nice is a reward in itself. It is not costing you, it is gaining you. In turn, in an ideal world, it would lead to them doing the same. It is all about setting an example for others to follow. The world cannot change in an instant, it takes work to get something done. However, when things do get done, it is it's own reward.

 

 

It is all about setting an example for others.

 

To people who say morals and ethics and the like do not belong in this game, you could not be more wrong. Runescape being an MMO means that it is a community oriented game. Communities where everybody does what they want and doesn't help others will eventually implode and stagnate as nobody will want to join it. I can truly see that happening to runescape.

 

This is all in an ideal world, but I would much rather talk of an ideal world to aim for than a crap world we currently inhabit.

[strilmus]

It's not really Jagex's fault. Granted, they're really stupid when it comes to knowing how other people play their game, and that they've wasted a lot of time on things that nobody actually wanted (rather, they did things that they THOUGHT people wanted before running the ideas past the entire RS public), but really, I blame the dominant RS culture of extreme competition.

 

Jagex, for all their gaffes and poor planning, are ultimately struggling against the dynamic between those who play the game for pure enjoyment and seeing their own characters grow and become more awesome, while others seek to do that ONLY for the satisfaction of being better or richer than anybody else, or to their exclusive benefit at the cost of others while not necessarily wanting to be the best. Some have mixed beliefs on that part, mostly because they think that there is no other way to deal with the crazier people and that they have to fight back, but in that decision have accidentally perpetuated the cycle.

 

So they have tried to strike a balance between competition and growth by introducing elements that mix or balance the two. However, it is never enough for the public. Somebody's always going to complain and argue that their own interests are superior to the others, and that they're not being heard, so ultimately nobody is satisfied with the compromise.

 

Am I necessarily always right in my beliefs that we should work together? No. There is validity in having both a competitive game and a growth based game, and both are necessary to survival in their own way.

 

Perhaps we should have separated long ago. But ultimately we will have to learn how to....deal with it like he said.

 

I was just convinced that Jagex really believed in the growth based game, but apparently most of the community were more interested in competition.

[xpx]

And i've already mentioned a couple of times on this thread that if I were never to be crashed, i wouldn't ever even consider crashing someone else. However, as i frequently get crashed by those same low levels while training slayer(non-multy crashing), i've given up caring and gone into an eff' you mode. Also, as i've said before, crashing will never stop as there is no accountability for your actions(of that sort) in runescape, thus why comparisons of cutting the line in real life aren't really fair. Unless there is accountability, this will never stop, thus being nice really shouldn't even be considered an option. This is further enhanced by the fact that if you have the best levels/equipment you can crash everyone below you and not be crashed yourself.

[i_trollz_u]

^^^

 

Which is why RS has a horrible reputation and has a declining population.

[Sir_Kurity]

Which is why people quit and RS becomes more unpopular, because no one enjoys listening to 138's say "get maxed or GTFO" when you're just trying to have fun.

 

Let GWD and every non-grinding/semi-fun activity become only playable by maxed players, because people who haven't grinded their lives away don't deserve to play them right?

 

Too bad no one cares enough to spend half their life grinding just to be able to compete with [wagon] at GWD, which results in quitting, and the community ends up becoming even more [bleep]ed up and filled only with people that have the mentality that anyone who doesn't have a yellow or red combat level by their name is unimportant and can go kill themselves.

 

Does no one else notice that the average level of players has become like 20 lvls higher since a few years ago but the overall population has seen on a sharp decline?

 

Hey don't blame the players. Jagex makes a system where a significant majority of bosses, and a good portion of skills are all negatively effected by competition and which people with higher skill levels (or in mining/single combat areas, faster reflexes), have a better chance in the competition.

 

Naturally theres going to be competition. Unless theres a unified "lets not crash" effort, its not going to happen. And with the limited amount of worlds in some places like bandos, that would never work.

 

If i want an ore, and someone is in my spot. I'm going to kick them out of it, its as simple as that.

[stonewall337]

Ok, we seem to come down on two different sides:

 

Those who think 1.) First come First serve is a right and 2.) Levels are irrelevant in who is allowed to kill a boss

 

and those who think 1.) Due to there being no rules to the contrary, as well as a lack of resources, in addition to not accepting the theory of "right through first come first serve", the ability to kill a boss comes down to either no one else taking said boss, or else the ability to either take the boss for yourself, or prevent others to take a boss. And 2.) Whilst there is proper behavior, as well as good manners, in a situation where neither side can "own" a boss, then its is the responsibility of the lower level player to either fight for the spawn, or hop.

 

Therefore, it is my stance that I reject the argument of "first come first serve" as not only be illogical, but also as being impractical and unenforceable currently, and as such determine that a more important factor is both ability and levels, with gear being a less important factor at certain bosses, but a more important factor at others. As such, after due process to find a world, if unable to do so, I will exercise my ability, and although some may disagree I will claim my right, to take a boss, or set of bosses (DKS, TDS)

 

As such, although I view the crashing for "lulz" or to be an ass as reprehensible, much as I would view not blessing a grave of a teammate at GWD, I do not view crashing out of necessity, or practicality, as having any negative bearing on either my in game enjoyment, my real life morality or character.

 

May it thus be known that I will crash if necessary at some bosses, will fight to defend my spawn if practical, and will not crash to be an ass as a rule.

 

In addition, I find a person of similar levels, gear, and skill to me trying to crash me as being a futile gesture, as we will most likely split kills fairly evenly, and thus both parties should either decide who hops, or split kills.

 

I do make exception to whom I crash if they are someone I am friends with, as well.

[Troacctid]

Well, this is your opinion and you are completely entitled to it.

 

However, there are quite alot of people who don't see things the way you do. What you may see as self-destructive behavior, others might see as innovative thinking. After all, competing for your chances levels the playing field for everyone. The person who you crash on one day might come back and crash you on another day, thus giving both of them incentive to improve themselves. As a side effect of this welcome competition and thrill(yes), the economy improves, and by making alot of money, those same elitists bring down the prices of high end gear so others can reach those levels more easily. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being nice, but in the end of the day, when the happiness of others comes from the unhappiness of yourself, you are doing something wrong. Most of us just don't have all life to play around, we want to achieve our goals as fast and enjoyably as possible, and if some small part of it comes from making someone else unhappy in some situation, we can live with it. After all, you being nice to someone doesn't automatically guarantee he is also going to be nice- who is there to say that the person you decide not to crash didn't crash someone else for the spot?

 

 

Making others happy should make you happy though. Being nice is a reward in itself. It is not costing you, it is gaining you. In turn, in an ideal world, it would lead to them doing the same. It is all about setting an example for others to follow. The world cannot change in an instant, it takes work to get something done. However, when things do get done, it is it's own reward.

 

 

It is all about setting an example for others.

 

To people who say morals and ethics and the like do not belong in this game, you could not be more wrong. Runescape being an MMO means that it is a community oriented game. Communities where everybody does what they want and doesn't help others will eventually implode and stagnate as nobody will want to join it. I can truly see that happening to runescape.

 

This is all in an ideal world, but I would much rather talk of an ideal world to aim for than a crap world we currently inhabit.

You're right. I'm a terrible person with no morals. I have been blind. I always thought that the fun part of the game was playing the game and doing the activities I like to do. Now I realize that even though I thought I was having fun, I actually wasn't, because fun can only come from doing everything anyone else asks me to do no matter how stupid it is. From now on I will do nothing but stand around in F2P Lumbridge giving 10k to noobs because that is the most fun thing in the game.

[strilmus]

Well it's about striking a balance

 

And if you hold that attitude that everybody else is stupid and unimportant

 

Then what are they supposed to expect when you demand that everybody should let you do what you want

[Danqazmlp]

If you aren't going to bother, neither will I troacctid

 

To the last page: It does finally seem as we are getting somewhere. To stonewalls post:

 

I think we need a little bit of give and take between the sides. You shouldn't blindly let people walk all over you, but you should also go out with a mindset in which you will give people a little bit of wiggle room. for example, asking somebody how long they have left at a boss, maybe waiting 5 minutes for them to finish if possible? I don't think either side is totally right, compromise is needed.