Tip.It Times - 8th May 2011

[Lose No Hope]

Just like how I am choosing to leave this thread. Have a good day.

I'll take that as an apology. Good, this was a fruitless discussion.

It wasn't an apology. He was being mature and leaving what would have turned into an argument with nothing positive coming out of it.

[Crossed_Body]

It wasn't an apology. He was being mature and leaving what would have turned into an argument with nothing positive coming out of it.

Don't know if you noticed, but "would have" does not apply in this situation.

[dogfever]

Apologies if I'm treading old ground, I only got to page 4 of the thread then it looked a bit like an argument.

 

Re: Welcome to RunesCape

 

A nice article, well written and summing up some interesting developments. Personally, I couldn't be less interested in running around in a cape that proves I created my account more than five years ago but if people want to then fair game to them. I don't really see the logic in capes at all - mostly you are announcing your achievement (in the loosest sense of the word) to strangers who couldn't care less. I don't have a t-shirt with my A-level results written on it. It smacks a bit of juvenile egotism to me.

 

 

Re: A Lack of Skill

 

I can't say I really agree with much of this article, although the arguments are well phrased and the writing is easy to follow.

 

It is always telling of a skills popularity and/or difficulty when it only requires level 30 to reach the high-score list

and

its slow to train

 

Yes but you can't separate difficulty and popularity by this measure and I'm not sure that a skill which is difficult to train (by which we really mean time consuming) is therefore a 'bad' skill. Also it is only really slow because you have to gather the charms using other skills (ok mostly just combat and maybe slayer but still). This, for me, is one of the more pleasing elements. Summoning is a skill you have to work towards through other endeavours, rather than Construction which is eminently buyable. That isn't to say that Construction is bad, just buyable (not that I have bought it to any great extent).

 

Summoning, the first skill to deviate

 

Arguments about realism in an MMORPG are largely moot. Besides. Magic?

Provided a skill is balanced and integrated (more of this below) it is fine by me.

 

Perhaps Jagex needs to concern itself less with quantity, and more with quality, when it comes to releasing features, but that is another, equally worthwhile, discussion altogether.

 

Not to deride this article but I would say that this is a much more interesting debate and would love to see a Times article kicking that off. Personally, I would like to see more integration of skills into one another both in the rewards (which happens to an extent now - mostly supporting combat except Construction which is a good example) but also in the training requirements (such a Summoning). I feel that Hunter for example doesn't offer me quite enough in the way of cross skill rewards. This might be because I don't understand the rewards (although I did read up on it when I considered putting time into it when I returned to the game) or that the rewards don't support my major in game hobbies (herb and slayer). I would also argue that a lack of integration is not a new phenomenon - see Firemaking.

 

In my opinion the ceaseless clamour for new content, especially skills and equipment has lead to the bloating of RS2. For example, the death of smithing - largely due to widely available combat equipment superior to rune.

[Andregiant]

I've been reading the Times ever seen I joined.

Some articles, lots of times, I don't agreed with the opinion expressed. But if the article is well written, I enjoy reading.

 

I completlely disagreed with Crocefisso, but thought it was well written, and got me reading till the end.

 

All I look for every week.

[tomegun74]

I must agree with Andregiant on this one, I honestly haven't read any of the previous posts. Most of the times now on these threads, it becomes an arguement of who is right or how it should be. Which is fine but thats why i don't post, i dont need the hastle of trying to back up my original comment when it gets twisted more than a game of telephone (probably dating myself). The reason i am posting is the fact that this article was very entertaining for me. I read it first to see what the capes where all about, secretly hoping that maybe the values of the capes were discussed. Although, when reading the author Racheya conveyed an intersting point that sticks out "capescape". Really that what this games is turning into more of what can an individual can do than in turn a true defintion of what the game brought some many people to it, multiplayer. Which i feel has been lost for a couple of years.

[Jackie_Clay]

Was there really nothing else to put in this week? Because I don't believe that this could have been chosen over anything. If I wanted to read trash like that I would spend my day on the RS rants forum where other people who just want to slate Jagex for no apparent reason hang out. Although I must admit that the quality of most threads on there is rather higher than that of this article.

 

 

You may well disagree with the content, Amethyst, but I think we all know that my article - regardless of your opinion of the views expressed - is of better written quality than a 12 year old saying "O ye I is well anoyed wiv dis change" and so on. Simply because you disagree with my opinion does not mean that you should descend into vitriolic, petty attacks on the article itself. This forum is intended to be a place for debate, not unsubstantiated, unnecesary derision. The difference is significant; next time, you - and all others who feel it necessary to express their disagreement in the most virulent manner possible- would do well to remember this when posting future comments.

I'm sorry, but compared to many articles past that I have enjoyed over the years it just wasn't that good.

[Amethyst_Gem]

Was there really nothing else to put in this week? Because I don't believe that this could have been chosen over anything. If I wanted to read trash like that I would spend my day on the RS rants forum where other people who just want to slate Jagex for no apparent reason hang out. Although I must admit that the quality of most threads on there is rather higher than that of this article.

 

 

You may well disagree with the content, Amethyst, but I think we all know that my article - regardless of your opinion of the views expressed - is of better written quality than a 12 year old saying "O ye I is well anoyed wiv dis change" and so on. Simply because you disagree with my opinion does not mean that you should descend into vitriolic, petty attacks on the article itself. This forum is intended to be a place for debate, not unsubstantiated, unnecesary derision. The difference is significant; next time, you - and all others who feel it necessary to express their disagreement in the most virulent manner possible- would do well to remember this when posting future comments.

 

Sorry if my post was poorly written. It was written in a hurry and I was just getting out some of the points. But your article was also poorly written. And I'm not saying that because I disagree with it - there have been articles in the past (eg. "The Camelot Dilemma" by Necromagus in January 2nd's [bleep]) that I have disagreed with but which are still well written articles, presenting a well built case for the author's views, including an acknowledgement for the rationale behind arguments that they disagree with. To state an opponent's case and then demonstrate how it is wrong or why you disagree with it is a very effective way of getting your case across. You didn't do this - nowhere in your article was there an acknowledgement of why people like dungeoneering, which a very large number of people do. Instead you simply insulted anyone who liked it and actually something that a lot of people like as a reason why it failed? Summoning was treated in a similar manner, stating only that it is useful in combat, when it is useful for just about every skill in the game, and several other things besides skills too. On the other hand, you didn't acknowledge the flaws in the things you presented in a positive light, such as construction (which, incidentally, was a lot less trained when new than ANY of the skills that have come since). You insult Jagex, calling them "incapable", without any decent evidence to justify this. And then you go into an advert for a skill idea that someone has come up with, which you don't even go fully into the detail of how it would work.

 

You essentially try to combine 2 articles - an analysis of Jagex's skills in the past, and an explanation of how you feel Jagex needs to implement a specific other skill in the future. And in doing so you fail to do justice to either.

 

Oh and that's not to mention your basic level failure of repeatedly using terminology without even explaining what you mean by it (I'm talking of course about breadth v depth). Which means that any reader who does not somehow magically know what you mean by this terminology will struggle to get any of your points in which it is used. Which pretty much means the entire article. It's just about the most fundamental error you can make in fact.

 

And if you think that the above is "vitriolic, petty attacks" yet somehow that your article isn't then I have nothing more to say to you other than that you are wrong. The above is criticism. Nothing petty or (unnecessarily) vitriolic about it. Attacks? Yes. Because a poorly written article deserves to be attacked.

[CookMePlox]

Saying "It is always telling of a skills popularity and/or difficulty when it only requires level 30 to reach the high-score list." sort of defeats the point of the second article, which was promoting Construction. Considering that the same is true about Construction (and there are more people on the hiscores with Hunter than Construction), that really was not a very good point to make.

[Thus]

Was Crocefisso chased out of town by an angry mob yet like a hideous monster?

[Crocefisso]

It certainly might seem that way.

 

In all honesty, I just cannot be bothered to respond - in full or in part - to most of the criticism (a quick browse of the criticism will make it obvious why). I've better things to do.

[Jonanananas]

It certainly might seem that way.

 

In all honesty, I just cannot be bothered to respond - in full or in part - to most of the criticism (a quick browse of the criticism will make it obvious why). I've better things to do.

 

Tbh it makes you look like you can't counter the arguments. Yes, there are posts who went over the top(mostly at the end of the thread) but I think there are enough who adress your arguments without being insulting. But you mostly haven't answered any of those either.

Of course it's your decision, but a discussion about an article is usually more productive if the author participates too.

[Qeauxraline]

As for the second article. One word.

 

Sailing.

 

It's coming.

[obidiah]

1st Article

Generally a well written article,

However bear in mind that over the last 3 years F2P has got far far more updates than it got in the "good old days."

In the "golden era" of 2005 and 2006 they barely got any updates at all except for holiday events.

Some updates are going to be for all users and some are going to be P2P. Just because the free users don't get to pick and chose which are the free updates, doesn't mean that they're being shown no respect. I would suggest they're getting at least as much as their proportionate contribution to Jagex deserves.

 

2nd article

Really can't relate to this article and it does far to much of stating his opinion as fact. I think that the summoning and dungeoneering skills are some of my favourite skills. For me they're probably 4th and 5th after Slayer, Herblore and farming.

I think Dungeoneering has some of the best gameplay and summoning has reasonable gameplay, plus it has a diverse set of interesting rewards throughout the full level range.

Construction is quite a lot further down my favourites list as gameplay seems to mostly consists of building larders - whatever level you are at - and while it has lots of rewards - the majoroty are just the reward of furniture to make your house look fancy. (so a showing off reward which it only achieves what it sets out to do if and when you persuade people into your house rather than wherever you go)

[Nifflin]

The second article can't be taken seriously. Just take a look at the author on the highscores and their "semi-retired" status to understand that they are totally unqualified to make a statement about any of the things they criticize.

 

 

In all honesty, I just cannot be bothered to respond - in full or in part - to most of the criticism (a quick browse of the criticism will make it obvious why). I've better things to do.

 

Please, you took the time to write that article, I would really like to see you take the time to respond to some of the criticism. What exactly is your dungoneering level is my question. I mean most people agree that the skill only gets really good around level 70-80 and gets better and better as you keep training it from there.

 

Edit: Well done on the first article, I really enjoyed it.

[obidiah]

1st Article

Generally a well written article,

However bear in mind that over the last 3 years F2P has got far far more updates than it got in the "good old days."

In the "golden era" of 2005 and 2006 they barely got any updates at all except for holiday events.

Some updates are going to be for all users and some are going to be P2P. Just because the free users don't get to pick and chose which are the free updates, doesn't mean that they're being shown no respect. I would suggest they're getting at least as much as their proportionate contribution to Jagex deserves.

 

2nd article

Really can't relate to this article and it does far to much of stating his opinion as fact. I think that the summoning and dungeoneering skills are some of my favourite skills. For me they're probably 4th and 5th after Slayer, Herblore and farming.

I think Dungeoneering has some of the best gameplay and summoning has reasonable gameplay, plus it has a diverse set of interesting rewards throughout the full level range.

Construction is quite a lot further down my favourites list as gameplay seems to mostly consists of building larders - whatever level you are at - and while it has lots of rewards - the majoroty are just the reward of furniture to make your house look fancy. (so a showing off reward which it only achieves what it sets out to do if and when you persuade people into your house rather than wherever you go)

 

 

Thinking about things further, what really bothers me about the 2nd isn't so much the stating opinion as fact after all.

- but the little implications throughout that the writer has assumed that I the reader have the same opinions on skills as he does (unless I'm some sort of shallow idiot) and that he's somehow speaking for the community as a whole.

It reads to me like he hadn't even considered the possibility that lots of intelligent people, might actually enjoy the new skills. - I think that's partially why some people railing quite so viciously against his article - people don't like the feeling of being spoken for - when they don't actually share those views.

 

Others have already mentioned the

"It belongs to no category and is a characterless feature added only to satiate demanding, shallow customers."

 

Also

"To us consumers, it’s also patronising to assume that we will be awed and satisfied by superficiality; we do not ask for simply ‘more content’, but ‘better content’ and ‘fresh content’"

seems to assume that everyone (including Jagex themselves) considers dungeoneering poor superficial content. (I think from reading blogs etc, even taking into account Jagex overhype - they genuinely considered dungeoneering to be depth content, so weren't making the patronising assumptions the author assumed they made)

[Urza285]

Jagex in terms of runescape has always catered to shallow consumers. The majority of their updates are either straightforward or shallow. Now i do give them credit though because the work they do is immense and their content is broad. But the way they make their content, probaby due to their systems, makes their content seem shallow. A good example was their amazingly huge construction update with so many things to do. They factor that made it seem shallow, or simple, was that everything had a place. You couldnt actually move anything around other than the rooms.

[Danqazmlp]

The second article can't be taken seriously. Just take a look at the author on the highscores and their "semi-retired" status to understand that they are totally unqualified to make a statement about any of the things they criticize.

 

 

In all honesty, I just cannot be bothered to respond - in full or in part - to most of the criticism (a quick browse of the criticism will make it obvious why). I've better things to do.

 

Please, you took the time to write that article, I would really like to see you take the time to respond to some of the criticism. What exactly is your dungoneering level is my question. I mean most people agree that the skill only gets really good around level 70-80 and gets better and better as you keep training it from there.

 

Edit: Well done on the first article, I really enjoyed it.

 

You don't need levels to have an opinion. If the skill doesn't get good until 70, that means for a long time it's bad.

[Nifflin]

The second article can't be taken seriously. Just take a look at the author on the highscores and their "semi-retired" status to understand that they are totally unqualified to make a statement about any of the things they criticize.

 

 

In all honesty, I just cannot be bothered to respond - in full or in part - to most of the criticism (a quick browse of the criticism will make it obvious why). I've better things to do.

 

Please, you took the time to write that article, I would really like to see you take the time to respond to some of the criticism. What exactly is your dungoneering level is my question. I mean most people agree that the skill only gets really good around level 70-80 and gets better and better as you keep training it from there.

 

Edit: Well done on the first article, I really enjoyed it.

 

You don't need levels to have an opinion. If the skill doesn't get good until 70, that means for a long time it's bad.

 

Level 70 is like 800k exp? In a skill that take 104m exp to max out? Training 1-70 is a minuscule part of the awesome skill that is dungoneering.

 

It's like a person with level 30 combat stats bashing combat. Yes, they have an opinion on it. Yes, they have the right to have and express that opinion. But in no way, shape or form though does that ensure that their opinion is correct.

 

This is the same sort of thing.

 

Edit: You are in the same boat tbh, you have 33 dung and are retired.

[Crossed_Body]

You don't need levels to have an opinion.

Of course you don't. But if your opinion is based on biased experiences, you might as well not write an entire article based on it.

That is, if you don't want to get yelled at by the guys who actually experienced the subject enough to form a coherent opinion on it.

[Danqazmlp]

You will get just as biased experiences of content if you play it a short time or a long time. For somebody who only plays for 30 levels then doesn't like it, they find the skill bad. For those who play it for longer and stay with it, they find the skill good. That doesn't mean one side has a better opinion than the other, it just means they have different opinions. No one opinion is right, it is all about the individual. So levels do not come into effect as it would be biased one way or another.

[Saradomin_Mage]

You will get just as biased experiences of content if you play it a short time or a long time. For somebody who only plays for 30 levels then doesn't like it, they find the skill bad. For those who play it for longer and stay with it, they find the skill good. That doesn't mean one side has a better opinion than the other, it just means they have different opinions. No one opinion is right, it is all about the individual. So levels do not come into effect as it would be biased one way or another.

Surely as a character who has played from level 1 to 115 Dungeoneering, I would be qualified to mention not only the good parts which occurred at level 80+, but also the early levels where real Dungeoneering actually sucked wastewater? I remember the first 30 levels were a massive struggle in the first 2 weeks, because you couldn't boost the stat with XP rewards at all ! Because I didn't understand the prestige system, penalty system and XP system well, I felt like they dragged forever, were a terrible grindfest and just really, really SUCKED.

 

HOWEVER, the distinction here is that I did NOT QUIT. I didn't get to level 30 and go "I'm on the highscores and this skill sucks, I'm never training it again!". NO. I went further because I WANTED the chaotic rapier and was motivated to make that my first, if only, item purchase. The first 2 weeks ticked past, and I used penguin points to bump up my level. I got my maximum prestige boosted, making the XP rates more tolerable. I read up on prestige tactics, and learned not to solo c6 every single floor. I tried teaming on the then not-so-crappy w117. I read research and information published by other good players. I gave the skill a CHANCE. And when I made it to 200k tokens, and purchased my rapier, I found a spark that kept me going.

 

Thus the distinction : I gave the skill a further push, and found gratification. The writer (or you), I don't know, probably got highscore ranked and then just gave up because they never got the full experience of the skill. When/If you play the skill in the multitude of ways it can be experienced, you may come back and produce your valid opinion.

[Crossed_Body]

You will get just as biased experiences of content if you play it a short time or a long time. For somebody who only plays for 30 levels then doesn't like it, they find the skill bad. For those who play it for longer and stay with it, they find the skill good. That doesn't mean one side has a better opinion than the other, it just means they have different opinions. No one opinion is right, it is all about the individual. So levels do not come into effect as it would be biased one way or another.

That's completely wrong. A person exposed to the same experience for longer periods of time will have more knowledge, and therefore be more qualified to talk about it.

 

If I played runescape for 10 minutes, killed some goblins, and wrote an article saying that it sucks, would I have any credit or merit? No, because I did not play the game long enough to write an informed article about it.

 

Is it my opinion? Yes. If my opinion worth listening to? No.

[celtica]

I agree with the author that many of the recent quests have been shallow. I do not even give construction as much credit as he does. I started RS in classic, in 2003 I think. When you start a game like this, you expect the skills to represent attributes of your character. So why even add new skills? Isn't it a bit weird that a character can be around for years, and then suddenly develop a new skill? Some refinement of the skills makes sense. Some of the newish skills make sense with other portions of the game, and so were good additions. (and this is completely removed from whether people enjoy a skill or not, but more from the concept of developing a game.)

 

When farming was first added, it seemed pretty pointless, but Jagex felt they needed to add a skill. You can grow herbs that can help make potions which can help other aspects of the game, so it does integrate into the game decently.

 

Many people like slayer, but it is not a skill. It is a series of jobs that you complete. It is a combat training series. It has a place in the game, and makes it better for many, but it is not really a distinct skill.

 

As was said, hunting is sort of a bolted on thing that does not really interact with any other skill or activity, and is not really much of an attribute of your character. If they made the monsters you could kill for food huntable, and the ones that you melee'd etc not edible, then hunting would have a little more reason to exist, but that would also be a major change to a world that people already know, so should not be done.

 

And dungeon is laughable. Most skills, you could view as "what is my character going to do today?" Grow food, catch food, cook? Craft or smith some armor? Cut or mine supplies? Just what you would expect from an RPG. Not Im going to zap somewhere different, with all the ores and weapons and such completely renamed, then zap back to this reality when I am done. Sorry, that was stupid and not a skill.

 

I think RS does need fresh content. That can be new quests, new areas to discover ( WHEN ARE THEY EVER GOING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING BEHIND THOSE HUGE CRYSTAL GATESS!!!), new different weapons and monsters, though the new monsters should be in new areas and not jack around a world some characters have thoroughly explored, but they really should not just re-define the attributes of a character in different ways just because it has been x months since last time they did that.

[Crossed_Body]

I agree with the author that many of the recent quests have been shallow. I do not even give construction as much credit as he does. I started RS in classic, in 2003 I think. When you start a game like this, you expect the skills to represent attributes of your character. So why even add new skills? Isn't it a bit weird that a character can be around for years, and then suddenly develop a new skill? Some refinement of the skills makes sense. Some of the newish skills make sense with other portions of the game, and so were good additions. (and this is completely removed from whether people enjoy a skill or not, but more from the concept of developing a game.)

 

When farming was first added, it seemed pretty pointless, but Jagex felt they needed to add a skill. You can grow herbs that can help make potions which can help other aspects of the game, so it does integrate into the game decently.

 

Many people like slayer, but it is not a skill. It is a series of jobs that you complete. It is a combat training series. It has a place in the game, and makes it better for many, but it is not really a distinct skill.

 

As was said, hunting is sort of a bolted on thing that does not really interact with any other skill or activity, and is not really much of an attribute of your character. If they made the monsters you could kill for food huntable, and the ones that you melee'd etc not edible, then hunting would have a little more reason to exist, but that would also be a major change to a world that people already know, so should not be done.

 

And dungeon is laughable. Most skills, you could view as "what is my character going to do today?" Grow food, catch food, cook? Craft or smith some armor? Cut or mine supplies? Just what you would expect from an RPG. Not Im going to zap somewhere different, with all the ores and weapons and such completely renamed, then zap back to this reality when I am done. Sorry, that was stupid and not a skill.

 

I think RS does need fresh content. That can be new quests, new areas to discover ( WHEN ARE THEY EVER GOING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING BEHIND THOSE HUGE CRYSTAL GATESS!!!), new different weapons and monsters, though the new monsters should be in new areas and not jack around a world some characters have thoroughly explored, but they really should not just re-define the attributes of a character in different ways just because it has been x months since last time they did that.

 

You make fair points. I also think that Jagex puts the "skill" label on too many things that could be side activities, or exploratory experiences, but I've grown to acknowledge that sometimes, putting the "skill" label on something extends the lifespan of the activity, albeit artificially. That works well for Jagex, but it's what adds on the grinding element of the game.

They have, however, slightly redeemed themselves with extra training options that reduce the grind, but it's neither the perfect solution, nor the topic at hand.

[celtica]

Thanks Crossed_Body. One word stood out in your reply. Grind. For the first few years I played, I did not grind away training a specific skill, and I think far fewer players did. I would go killing something with friends for awhile to socialize and get the drops. Then, might fish for awhile, and then cook to have supplies for the next time we did that, but I developed many of the smaller set of skills as a result of game play and not just grinding away on a skill, which I have to admit I often do now, and sometimes do get bored from that.

 

There is certainly more grinding than there used to be. People endlessly chopping away at ivy is enough evidence of that.

 

Sorry, not on topic, but interesting what you said.

 

I agree with the author that many of the recent quests have been shallow. I do not even give construction as much credit as he does. I started RS in classic, in 2003 I think. When you start a game like this, you expect the skills to represent attributes of your character. So why even add new skills? Isn't it a bit weird that a character can be around for years, and then suddenly develop a new skill? Some refinement of the skills makes sense. Some of the newish skills make sense with other portions of the game, and so were good additions. (and this is completely removed from whether people enjoy a skill or not, but more from the concept of developing a game.)

 

When farming was first added, it seemed pretty pointless, but Jagex felt they needed to add a skill. You can grow herbs that can help make potions which can help other aspects of the game, so it does integrate into the game decently.

 

Many people like slayer, but it is not a skill. It is a series of jobs that you complete. It is a combat training series. It has a place in the game, and makes it better for many, but it is not really a distinct skill.

 

As was said, hunting is sort of a bolted on thing that does not really interact with any other skill or activity, and is not really much of an attribute of your character. If they made the monsters you could kill for food huntable, and the ones that you melee'd etc not edible, then hunting would have a little more reason to exist, but that would also be a major change to a world that people already know, so should not be done.

 

And dungeon is laughable. Most skills, you could view as "what is my character going to do today?" Grow food, catch food, cook? Craft or smith some armor? Cut or mine supplies? Just what you would expect from an RPG. Not Im going to zap somewhere different, with all the ores and weapons and such completely renamed, then zap back to this reality when I am done. Sorry, that was stupid and not a skill.

 

I think RS does need fresh content. That can be new quests, new areas to discover ( WHEN ARE THEY EVER GOING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING BEHIND THOSE HUGE CRYSTAL GATESS!!!), new different weapons and monsters, though the new monsters should be in new areas and not jack around a world some characters have thoroughly explored, but they really should not just re-define the attributes of a character in different ways just because it has been x months since last time they did that.

 

You make fair points. I also think that Jagex puts the "skill" label on too many things that could be side activities, or exploratory experiences, but I've grown to acknowledge that sometimes, putting the "skill" label on something extends the lifespan of the activity, albeit artificially. That works well for Jagex, but it's what adds on the grinding element of the game.

They have, however, slightly redeemed themselves with extra training options that reduce the grind, but it's neither the perfect solution, nor the topic at hand.