Tip.It Times - 19th February 2012

[tripsis]

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!

[stonewall337]

Good points in the article ALG, but I would have liked some thoughts on how it could be fixed. Better options for Jagex IMO would be to cause increased armor to increase damage reduction by a flat %, instead of any type of soaking. 75 magic armor = 20% reduced magic damage, while 100 =25%. Although perhaps diminishing returns would be needed. Or make it so certain monsters have a type of stat drain, or smite, more damage= lower stats/less prayer. Or so that armor passively increases strength/magic/range depending on weapon or armor (That'd be a really major change). So many options. The roll chance model of dodge, and the ability to negate/heal damage so easily are huge flaws in RS combat.

[Alg]

I tried to avoid specifics and solutions because I don't actually know enough about RS combat to do so :razz:

[Assume Nothing]

Just maybe... you might want to consider doing a co-op article if that's the case?

[September 5]

Hey Alg I have spent a pretty decent amount of time pking as a pure, both in f2p and p2p, and I think at the very least armor should include an hp boost. A couple weeks ago i was running around with my 72 cb pure and quickly noticed that anyone with rune armor at my cb lvl was immediately rushed and easily killed by a quick d-claw spec. 40def + rune armor barely makes a dint in the advantage of 60+ atk and weapons of dragon status or higher. Moreover, the defense bonuses of a low lvl player with some defense in no way makes up for the distinct lack of constitution. My friend is cb 74 and just got 99 range with 88 constitution. In comparison most 74 cb's with 40 defense have closer to 60-70 hp. I don't feel that i have the experience to speak on the issue of monster hunting, but I definitely think that lifepoint boosting armor would be a huge step in the right direction to improving the pvp combat situation.

[Kirschen]

I was intrigued at the second article in how the implements in new quests are designed to include voices and depth, and I didn't even notice the trait of those quests having us referred to as "adventurer" or something that doesn't involve doing every phonetic sound or number use. As for the other two articles, I agree defense needs a change, but the system right now seems too deeply implemented that changing it could produce odd implications.

 

As for the third article, I was rather disturbed and only stopped a little over halfway. I knew f2p Lumbridge on Worlds 1 and 3 were bad, but reading it seems to be far worse than possible.

[deskjethp]

I always thought it would make sense for agility to affect defence. Even if it wasn't significant, it could provide a boost. It would really be interesting to make it provide a combat level invisible boost, too. This would probably make people rage and set the duel arena scene quite aflutter though. If it was implemented at all it would boost the influence of the skill though, beyond the occasional shortcut and the run recharging time.

 

I'm torn on the quests thing. I mean, it's good to be able to have all the options... but it would be very interesting if they had more stuff like the end of the family crest quest used to be where you could only ever pick one gauntlet type and had to keep it. (not that I'm complaining that they changed it, it would just be interesting if they hadn't).. Or there's the whole Shield of Arrav / Hero's thing where you can't get access to certain areas based on what side you are on. Maybe they will add some more duo/team questing in the future?

[Thus]

The third article was very heavy, but honestly if you were on the internet alone at 11 that's what you expect. Kids grow up very quickly nowadays because of the internet, and parents need to do something to help stop this. And why were you playing at that age anyway?

 

Nonetheless, it was the greatest Times article that was ever written. Too bad some useless article about defense got the feature.

[Arceus]

The third article was very heavy, but honestly if you were on the internet alone at 11 that's what you expect. Kids grow up very quickly nowadays because of the internet, and parents need to do something to help stop this. And why were you playing at that age anyway?

 

Nonetheless, it was the greatest Times article that was ever written. Too bad some useless article about defense got the feature.

I'm not so sure about that second-to-last claim, but I appreciate the sentiment-thank you!

 

Edit: I didn't see the second half of your comment. While you're entitled to your own opinions, I would not have wanted an article of this nature to be featured for obvious content-related reasons.

[Assume Nothing]

The third article was very heavy, but honestly if you were on the internet alone at 11 that's what you expect. Kids grow up very quickly nowadays because of the internet, and parents need to do something to help stop this. And why were you playing at that age anyway?

 

Nonetheless, it was the greatest Times article that was ever written. Too bad some useless article about defense got the feature.

 

Please, don't project your ideals as though it was a group consensus. Why do you personally dislike the article about defense? Was it too elaborate, or not elaborate enough? Did it miss a key point or two? Does it happen to be too repetitive? Could it be an article too verbose to be easily understood? Did it reiterate what others have said without introducing a new idea? Is the article too trivial, or too serious?

 

You see, by stating that you dislike something offers nothing to help the author improve. That's why your remark regarding the 'useless article about defense' holds no weight, thus it's merely an unsubstantiated claim. It's meaningless in that it serves no purpose.

[cultjunky]

I'm not sure why, but it seems that a large proportion of the articles in the Times are about changing something. It might get called 'rebalancing' or 'potential development', but essentially, a lot of the articles are about some level of dissatisfaction. I know we can all agree that there are some tweeks that we'd all like to see, but I feel that some articles regarding 'improvements' really belong in the suggestions forum on the RSOF.

 

Nevertheless, the first two articles do raise some interesting points. Cheers for posting.

 

The third article - 'End of Innocence', well, there's nothing new in what's being said. I'd take a guess that a fair number of players have had some 'uncomfortable' suggestion made to them at some point in their RS career. However, I think it's a difficult issue to tackle. Yes, there's quick chat. Yes, there's info for parents. And yes, online grooming and solicitation has been around since dial up. Hands up if you've reported someone for indecently proposing. Anyone? To me, that sort of thing is far more abhorrent than website advertising or racist comments. Maybe it's just something you don't see so often on P2P, at least I don't.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't see any problem with the notion of change. Ultimately, a review of something will almost always find faults, so there'll almost always be suggestions at some level. I don't think there'll be much interest, or purpose in constantly expressing satisfaction. That's the role of the community - the role of the EP is more to offer an alternate viewpoint or perspective.

[Kaida23]

The third article - 'End of Innocence', well, there's nothing new in what's being said. I'd take a guess that a fair number of players have had some 'uncomfortable' suggestion made to them at some point in their RS career. However, I think it's a difficult issue to tackle. Yes, there's quick chat. Yes, there's info for parents. And yes, online grooming and solicitation has been around since dial up. Hands up if you've reported someone for indecently proposing. Anyone? To me, that sort of thing is far more abhorrent than website advertising or racist comments. Maybe it's just something you don't see so often on P2P, at least I don't.

I don't know if I'd agree that it's all that prevalent in the game. Honestly, I was shocked when Arceus posted the first draft of his article. I've been playing for over 6 years now and the worst thing I've ever had anyone ask was if I would "be my gf?" or commented that I was "hawt". Maybe it's because I'm not generally on w1, or even around Lumbridge much, but I really didn't know things were that bad.

[tripsis]

Regarding "End of Innocence," after Arceus posted his draft I went into world 1 Lumbridge myself to check it out... it's pretty crazy/disturbing the things that are being said :/ I easily reported 10 people in a short amount of time.

[Alg]

I don't know if I'd agree that it's all that prevalent in the game. Honestly, I was shocked when Arceus posted the first draft of his article. I've been playing for over 6 years now and the worst thing I've ever had anyone ask was if I would "be my gf?" or commented that I was "hawt". Maybe it's because I'm not generally on w1, or even around Lumbridge much, but I really didn't know things were that bad.

The state of W1 was pretty well documented among player mods a few years ago, but outside of them, not many people paid attention to it.

[The_Fray]

Having spent a considerable amount of time in F2p I have always known about the activities that certain people used to engage in World 1. I spent a lot of time merchanting over there in my early runescape days and knew of the many problems that plagued the place. What I did not know is that it still happens, but this is the internet and when you have a bunch of prepubescent kids in one place they are bound to do something like this. I doubt there is something more sinister but it is definitely concerning.

 

The third article was very heavy, but honestly if you were on the internet alone at 11 that's what you expect. Kids grow up very quickly nowadays because of the internet, and parents need to do something to help stop this. And why were you playing at that age anyway?

 

Nonetheless, it was the greatest Times article that was ever written. Too bad some useless article about defense got the feature.

Please, don't project your ideals as though it was a group consensus. Why do you personally dislike the article about defense? Was it too elaborate, or not elaborate enough? Did it miss a key point or two? Does it happen to be too repetitive? Could it be an article too verbose to be easily understood? Did it reiterate what others have said without introducing a new idea? Is the article too trivial, or too serious?

 

You see, by stating that you dislike something offers nothing to help the author improve. That's why your remark regarding the 'useless article about defense' holds no weight, thus it's merely an unsubstantiated claim. It's meaningless in that it serves no purpose.

How did you get that from his post? The guy just called the article "useless", which his opinion, I disagree with it but he is entitled to it. Sure its not constructive, but lets not bash the guy before he has a chance to explain. Maybe he just feels that the other article was much much better, in which case I agree with him. It certainly discussed a topic that some may consider "taboo", it probably came across as informative to some as well, few people know how bad the situation in World 1 is.

[Assume Nothing]

World 1 is most definitely a disproportionate example of any identified user traits.

[Kirschen]

Having spent a considerable amount of time in F2p I have always known about the activities that certain people used to engage in World 1. I spent a lot of time merchanting over there in my early runescape days and knew of the many problems that plagued the place. What I did not know is that it still happens, but this is the internet and when you have a bunch of prepubescent kids in one place they are bound to do something like this. I doubt there is something more sinister but it is definitely concerning.

 

"concerning" can be considered an understatement in the volume of where it's at now by what the article implied (or a few months ago based on the last time I was bored enough to trek there), and the article was mainly focused on Lumbridge in World 1. I almost feel the need to visit W1 myself just to see how abhorrent it is in other areas such as G.E. and Varrock. Last time I visited F2P, I was in World 3 and left within a few minutes because of how downright disgusting the behavior was and I recalled several Player Moderators hung out there in the past.

 

Even though it will torture my eyes, will go visit the places just to get a good grasp and how things are at the current moment. It's unfortunate that not much could change even if some at Jagex read the article and upped their priorities, but I might be saying this because of my cynicism in general.

 

EDIT: Not long after posting, I did venture into World 1 just to see for myself. Rather glad it's mostly isolated in Lumbridge and a good bit of the G.E., but it wasn't very pleasant in other areas I walked and/or teleported to either. I think Arceus' article was the only one where I went out of my way to try understanding by doing something in the game.

[Assume Nothing]

Having spent a considerable amount of time in F2p I have always known about the activities that certain people used to engage in World 1. I spent a lot of time merchanting over there in my early runescape days and knew of the many problems that plagued the place. What I did not know is that it still happens, but this is the internet and when you have a bunch of prepubescent kids in one place they are bound to do something like this. I doubt there is something more sinister but it is definitely concerning.

 

The third article was very heavy, but honestly if you were on the internet alone at 11 that's what you expect. Kids grow up very quickly nowadays because of the internet, and parents need to do something to help stop this. And why were you playing at that age anyway?

 

Nonetheless, it was the greatest Times article that was ever written. Too bad some useless article about defense got the feature.

Please, don't project your ideals as though it was a group consensus. Why do you personally dislike the article about defense? Was it too elaborate, or not elaborate enough? Did it miss a key point or two? Does it happen to be too repetitive? Could it be an article too verbose to be easily understood? Did it reiterate what others have said without introducing a new idea? Is the article too trivial, or too serious?

 

You see, by stating that you dislike something offers nothing to help the author improve. That's why your remark regarding the 'useless article about defense' holds no weight, thus it's merely an unsubstantiated claim. It's meaningless in that it serves no purpose.

How did you get that from his post? The guy just called the article "useless", which his opinion, I disagree with it but he is entitled to it. Sure its not constructive, but lets not bash the guy before he has a chance to explain. Maybe he just feels that the other article was much much better, in which case I agree with him. It certainly discussed a topic that some may consider "taboo", it probably came across as informative to some as well, few people know how bad the situation in World 1 is.

 

It depends how you'd define bashing. If critique is considered bashing, then I'd argue that it's a meaningless term - it fails to mark the distinction between constructive feedback and criticism that lacks purpose.

 

I think you've misidentified the inference in my post - I was referring to the 'this is the best article ever written'. It's written as though it's objectively true, which it obviously isn't. Nor is it agreed via a sufficiently large group consensus. Oh, and even if he is entitled to critique articles, it doesn't make it any more valid. The entitlement has no relevance to the truth value of the claim(s).

[Fresi]

the third article,

Did not know of this, I knew that this is a problem on the internet that also probably occurred at runescape on a few occasions. Terrible to see that there is so many out there doing this.

I'm truly horrifying. Is there anything we/jagex can do?

[Arceus]

I'm not really sure what we can do proactively, but "See something, say something" might be a good start.

[Thus]

 

 

It depends how you'd define bashing. If critique is considered bashing, then I'd argue that it's a meaningless term - it fails to mark the distinction between constructive feedback and criticism that lacks purpose.

 

I think you've misidentified the inference in my post - I was referring to the 'this is the best article ever written'. It's written as though it's objectively true, which it obviously isn't. Nor is it agreed via a sufficiently large group consensus. Oh, and even if he is entitled to critique articles, it doesn't make it any more valid. The entitlement has no relevance to the truth value of the claim(s).

 

I claim it is the best article written because, in my opinion not yours, it tells of a subject that has rarely been brought up in the relatively innocent Times publication. I thought it should have been featured instead of the defense one because the defense one has been discussed to no end on RSOF, in game, irc channels, etc. You don't hear about solicitation to minors, especially not to 11 year old girls, in a video game.

 

I'm not saying the defense one wasn't well written, because it was. But the third article had first hand information, drew at emotions, had a source backing some claims, and was never written about.

Edited February 20, 2012 by tripsis
Removed unnecessary bashing/insults

[The_Fray]

 

 

It depends how you'd define bashing. If critique is considered bashing, then I'd argue that it's a meaningless term - it fails to mark the distinction between constructive feedback and criticism that lacks purpose.

 

I think you've misidentified the inference in my post - I was referring to the 'this is the best article ever written'. It's written as though it's objectively true, which it obviously isn't. Nor is it agreed via a sufficiently large group consensus. Oh, and even if he is entitled to critique articles, it doesn't make it any more valid. The entitlement has no relevance to the truth value of the claim(s).

 

How about you get off your high horse? I only speak for myself, not you. You are nothing to me but some relatively new user who thinks he knows everything. You want a misidentified inference with no backing? Ok here it is: you are a little kid who wants to look cool and edgy on an internet forum who probably got little love from his parents growing up.

 

I claim it is the best article written because, in my opinion not yours, it tells of a subject that has rarely been brought up in the relatively innocent Times publication. I thought it should have been featured instead of the defense one because the defense one has been discussed to no end on RSOF, in game, irc channels, etc. You don't hear about solicitation to minors, especially not to 11 year old girls, in a video game.

 

I'm not saying the defense one wasn't well written, because it was. But the third article had first hand information, drew at emotions, had a source backing some claims, and was never written about.

In which case I agree with you, I was impressed with the daring of the author to not only engage some of these people in world 1 but to also write about it.

[Ibcrootbeer]

The End of Innocence?

 

I Haven't played RS in a few months, no money to buy memberships :<

 

I'm pretty sure when I left the game was about killing monsters and finishing quests...

 

Apparently on F2P populated worlds its about struttin' your stuff now.

 

I knew a Girl IRL who used to play Runescape, and would occasionally *hug* *kiss* in PMs in an attempt to leech rune Items every time I finished a clue (I randomly give away junk anyway). That alone made me uncomfortable because such things had no relevance to the game.

 

My opinion is we need to purge the inappropriate behavior going on on all the worlds, I can't even enjoy playing F2P anymore because of all the spammers, gold sellers, website advertisers, and now sex offenders roaming the populated zones.

 

The problem is due to free accounts and how easy it is to change your IP on a browser, it will be extremely difficult to ban these users for good.

 

Ip bans will not work due to siblings/roommate situations. (I started playing when my brother showed me the game back in 01)

If they limited account creation to once a day (to keep banned people banned) they could just pop in a proxy and come back.

 

Even a sophisticated automatic system for bans would be troublesome.

 

Accidently PM Wrong person: "Watcha upto sexy"

*screen goes black*

YOU HAVE BEEN BANNED

 

A Police Vehicle is speeding towards your house, Please hold for prison.

 

[Assume Nothing]

 

 

It depends how you'd define bashing. If critique is considered bashing, then I'd argue that it's a meaningless term - it fails to mark the distinction between constructive feedback and criticism that lacks purpose.

 

I think you've misidentified the inference in my post - I was referring to the 'this is the best article ever written'. It's written as though it's objectively true, which it obviously isn't. Nor is it agreed via a sufficiently large group consensus. Oh, and even if he is entitled to critique articles, it doesn't make it any more valid. The entitlement has no relevance to the truth value of the claim(s).

 

I claim it is the best article written because, in my opinion not yours, it tells of a subject that has rarely been brought up in the relatively innocent Times publication. I thought it should have been featured instead of the defense one because the defense one has been discussed to no end on RSOF, in game, irc channels, etc. You don't hear about solicitation to minors, especially not to 11 year old girls, in a video game.

 

I'm not saying the defense one wasn't well written, because it was. But the third article had first hand information, drew at emotions, had a source backing some claims, and was never written about.

 

It's subjectively true, so you should identify it as such. I don't see the necessity for the unprecedented ridicule and animosity of the pre-edited post. In addition to that, your pre-edited allegations are completely unsubstantiated, so they hold no weight at all. Heck - even if it's given that they're true, they fail to discredit my points. It's merely committing the ad-hominem fallacy, which is laughable in all honesty.

 

I don't agree that drawing at emotions is considered good argumentation - it's flawed because it falsely persuades readers on the basis of evoking an emotional response as opposed to a rational response.