Jump to content

Tip.It Times: 15-Jan-2012


Cowman_133

Recommended Posts

Time for a new release of the: >>>Tip.It Times!<<<

 

EDITORIAL PANEL DISCUSSION THREAD:

This thread is for discussing and debating the week's articles. If you would like to comment on the overall structure or direction of the Editorial Panel, please use the discussion topic in the Website Discussion forum.

 

I'd like to remind people of the rules pertaining to Times threads:

 

[hide=Read these rules before posting in this thread]

Rampant flame wars have taken control of virtually every week's times discussion topics. The following guidelines must be followed when posting on this topic. Posts that ignore these guidelines will be removed.

 

1. You are invited and welcome to express like or dislike on articles and a particular author's writing style. It is not acceptable, however, to flame or personally insult an author. Posts that aren't anything but an attack will be removed from the topic.

 

2. Spelling and grammar errors can be reported to tripsis by PMing her and they will be fixed promptly. It is not necessary to post them on the discussion topic.

 

3. Off topic posts that do not discuss the content of that week's articles will be removed. This is not the place to discuss the direction of the times, how much you love or hate the times, etc. Off topic posts will be removed.

 

By keeping within these guidelines, Times discussion topics will mean more for the Panel and Administration than just a place for flame wars. Flame wars do not provide any useful feedback to the Times, which is mainly what we're aiming for with these topics: feedback.

 

This policy is effective as of now, November 17, 2010. Any posts prior to the creation of this policy may or may not be removed according to the new guidelines.

[/hide]

 

When replying please make sure to clarify the article you are replying to! Thanks!

 

If you spot any typos or mistakes in the article then please PM them to @tripsis :)

 

Enjoy the articles!

1.png
generic_signature.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the firemaker's curse firemaking from 90 to 74 was very disappointing, and like the author, lower my positive feeling about Jagex and the future of rs after the botting nuke. Jagex did do something to improve my feelings about them though. They listened to one of my clan (RS Addicts) leader's thoughts about the new tier 7 citadel vex. Now everyone who gets a tirr 7 citadel can get that special vex instead of only those who got a tier 7 citadel this month.

 

w00t my first, first post.

Addict_Kevan.png[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the firemaker's curse firemaking from 90 to 74 was very disappointing, and like the author, lower my positive feeling about Jagex and the future of rs after the botting nuke. Jagex did do something to improve my feelings about them though. They listened to one of my clan (RS Addicts) leader's thoughts about the new tier 7 citadel vex. Now everyone who gets a tirr 7 citadel can get that special vex instead of only those who got a tier 7 citadel this month.

 

w00t my first, first post.

 

Welcome to TIF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lokie and Ham, congratulations on producing a pair absolutely sterling articles this week. Both were relevant, clearly aritculated and enjoyable to read. :thumbup:


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was disappointed with Lokie's "A Shaky Resolution"; I expect better-quality writing from the Times than this.

 

The subject matter was iffy, at best, since when the article was being written there has only been two updates. I really would have waited longer to consider whether or not Jagex was holding up their resolution for 2012. But I was hoping for something interesting regardless.

 

After reading the article, I was not left with a clear understanding of what point the author was trying to make, much less whether I agreed with that point or not. That's a major failing in any opinion-based article. After looked over it again, I realized why - the author didn't seem to know what point he was trying to make, either. To illustrate, let me summarize the three body paragraphs, as I understood them:

1. The Barrows update was good, though not everyone liked it.

2. Lowering the level requirement for All Fired Up was disappointing and Jagex lost the chance to set new precedent with a 90+ quest requirement.

3. We should pay attention to the small updates like Hati and graphical updates and not forget them as the year goes on.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the title of the article, but I believe the article was supposed to be criticizing Jagex for not entirely holding to their resolution, or not doing a good job of holding to it. However that is not the impression I get when reading the body articles or my summaries of them. I think that the editors may have been able to do a better job helping the author to clarify what he was trying to say, or recommending a change in subject if the author realized he couldn't make a full article on this subject - goodness knows that many times I've been halfway through writing a paper only to realize that I need to change topics for that very reason.

 

While I appreciate the effort, and I think this subject could certainly be revisited in a few weeks, I think it was too soon to make any real conclusions at this point, and the organizational difficulties in the article did nothing to help. I would like to see better writing from the Times in the future.

Obtained quest cape and base 92 before obtaining any 99s! Currently finishing out my 99s with the (long-distant) goal of comp cape.
Sorator.png
260pifq.jpg

gMIy8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I think it was too soon to make any real conclusions at this point...

"There are still eleven more months left of 2012, so there are still many chances for Jagex to show to us they still have the ability to define brand new or imply they can live up to their resolutions more strongly than most human beings."

 

I believe that the author was trying to make the point that it was too soon to make conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if my article was not clear enough for the readers. I will take account of this the next time I am writing an article and be more articulate when I make my point and increase my quality. Thanks for the feedback in letting me know the faults I caused in my article too, Sorator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if my article was not clear enough for the readers. I will take account of this the next time I am writing an article and be more articulate when I make my point and increase my quality. Thanks for the feedback in letting me know the faults I caused in my article too, Sorator.

Certainly! I give feedback in the hopes that you'll do better next time; my apologies if I'm excessively harsh.

Obtained quest cape and base 92 before obtaining any 99s! Currently finishing out my 99s with the (long-distant) goal of comp cape.
Sorator.png
260pifq.jpg

gMIy8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked reading the 'EP' article. I'm all about "behind the scenes" stuff. Whether it's on RuneScape.com, or Tip.It.

Getting some knowledge on how the machinery works is great, and makes you appreciate the articles more. Great topic.

 

I don't wanna go into grammar, or composition of the article - i do however agree to some of the points made in the article "A Shaky Resolution".

Being a veteran (since classic), and a somewhat high lever player, it was really disappointing for me that the FM req. was lowered from 90, like promised.

 

Yeah sure, i enjoy many of the "smaller" updates. But the bigger updates is what really excites me (i think most players can agree).

It really gets to me, when an update just isn't what it could have been. Even though i'm not 90 FM, i would have loved the idea of a quest requiring that.

As long as the quest reward matches the requirements, it would have been great. I don't think we need more high level updates, but i do think that

the quality, and innovation of them could be better. A 90+ quest requirement would have been something brand new. Not "just" another dungeon to explore.

 

Quality, innovation and diversity of updates is a big issue, which can be discussed over and over again.

I like reading you're articles though, keep up the work :thumbup:

Treyz0r.png

 

rssig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks for the 'did you know' segment...does not find it? Amg was looking forward to filling my brain with more rs trivia.

I would prefer even to fail with honor than to win by cheating - Sophocles

php1CLVGLAM.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[snip]

 

 

2. Lowering the level requirement for The Firemaker's Curse was disappointing and Jagex lost the chance to set new precedent with a 90+ quest requirement.

 

[snip]]

 

 

i get the feeling that i'm in quite a minority here, but i really welcomed the lowering of the firemaking requirements. instead of yet another quest i'm unlikely to ever play, A Firemaker's Curse is only a few FM levels out of my reach.

 

i'm not a grinder by habit, so it'll still take me a few weeks [or more] to get there, but at the rate i level up, i won't be getting any level 90s for a few more years... i mean, i've been playing since 2005 and my firemaking level is still in the low seventies.

 

and i, too, miss the 'did you know?' segment! those were fun!

A new study shows that 98% of teenagers listen to emo music. The other 2% have stayed straight gangster. 0% still listen to rock, but -4% of people listen to classical... wait, I'm a negative percentage..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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