Why is "safing" bad?

[Unlocked]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "safing".

 

 

 

There is also NO HONOR in PKing. Does that mean that I'll run from an agreed DM? Of course not.

 

 

 

I'm sorry if you don't agree with me when I say this, but I'm not going to not eat so that you have a better chance to kill me.

 

 

 

Call me stupid, but if I'm going to die, you're going to have to take me down the right way. I pay for the food; I'll use it whenever I want. Don't like it? Fight someone else.

 

 

 

 

 

~ Unlocked

[wildernessfreelancer]

Since when does the wilderness have "honor" rules? Did Jagex made them?

 

 

 

Basically you can "safe" anytime you want (Unless it's an agreed DM). If 10+ pkers come piling at you, of course you would safe. Prayer, food, teleports. They're all part of the wilderness. If a person said "Omg safe/def/prayer n00b", then he's being a jerk. It's all about analyzing the odds. A good pker won't be saying those things in the first place.

[RU_Insane]

strifen117

 

 

 

P2p isnt the problem, dds specials/whip work great and safing wont save you.

 

 

 

But f2p where the damage output, especially at 70+ def, per hit is so much lower that safing results in no risk = no fun. Imaging Kqing and it healing back to full health every time you got it to 50 - 75% health? Watch the d chain rocket, but see no fun eh?

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

And how about all you safers out there is it the only reason you're trying to blame and fight pures is because we don't safe? That's basically free stuff for you. So next time go fight some other safer when we tell you we don't wana fight. How is it exactly great to go fight someone that also safes like you every time they get to 75 percent hp, they eat a lob? Hmm I'd like to see you not to complain.

 

 

 

Erm...shut up. I own pures in any type of armor and then you [wagon] always safe (pures) when I hit a 20 on you. You eat food, I call you a safer, and you come up with the excuse "I'm eating so I don't die", then you hit a 20 on me, I eat, and you yell "SAFER!!!!111!" Shut up and counter your own arguments more effectively, and just so you know, pures "safe" as much as you think other non-pures "safe". -.-

[killerbook1]

safing isnt bad the people who fight safers just get mad cuz they wanna get stuff and theyre sore losers

[RU_Insane]

Someone who safes please try to argue against my point here:

 

 

 

I've spent a lot of my rs time in the wild, and after a while i've realised that if you over eat (safe) you won't get pks. Whats the point in going in the wild and eating at half health and often because you won't get sufficient rounds in to kill someone. The only time that safing is beneficial is if you're in multi combat or tagging on someone. Otherwise your overeating means that you won't get a pk as well as the other person, you won't win many fights if you overeat which defeats the point in going to the wild. - to pk people.

 

 

 

I have no problem with when people eat but when they try to justify it by foolishly thinking they'll get a load of pks even if they safe well they're deluded or not experienced in single combat pking. I've seen a lot of "i eat so i dont die", yeah you don't die but you certainly don't get many pks.

 

 

 

Flawed. You can "safe" and still get player kills.

[foodmanfood1]

Safing is not bad, it, if anything, uses your food slightly faster...

[Trollface]

It dosen't allow the opposing party a chance to kill you, which is why i safe, personally, to just piss off the guy im fighting if he pjed me

[generaldesor]

I think is the wilderness (well it was), so anything that isnt against the rules goes.

 

About safing,it isnt that inteligent in a one on one fight, unless you always eat at 20 or 25 hp, if you eat at more hps your fod will drain fast and you will get killed. At clanwars, it is esential to keep your health at 40 hp, but if you safe to higher [garden tool], the same problem.

[obfuscator]

there is absolutely nothing wrong with safing

 

i dont bring food for no reason, i eat to stay alive, im not going to stay at low hp to give you a chance to ignore my food

[Dutchownage]

All these people always say: Omfg safer, noob.

 

but it's just smart to eat when you're hurt, right?

 

I don't see the point in 'not safing'

[Nytestryke24]

I wouldn't say safing is bad- and I don't see why it wastes your food. They're going to hit what they're going to hit: It doesn't make much of a difference whether you eat or not. "Safer noob" is a stupid phrase, to be honest- I'm a noob because I prevent you from killing me >_

[chazzawatts]

All I can say is compare it to a war.

 

 

 

Its like one army telling the other if one of you guys gets wounded dont let any medics help him hes been hit once you might aswell die now.

 

 

 

it just doesnt work. In my opinion you should do whatever yu want with your food and I BH with chat off or on freinds as this way I can ignore people who I dont wish to speak to. If safing is such a huge problem then go to the duel areana

[Sharpeyex]

lol why do you care what your opponent calls you?

 

 

 

whatever they say, still kill them or counter them whenever you want. They are more angry and frustrated when they see their hard work being countered by an easy extra click on a piece of food, thus they call out "omfg safer noob". When they do that, you know you have succeeded. Pures counter non pures by building high offensive skills and keep a low defensive skill. Now it's time to counter them back. Since they have countered you, it's time to counter back. Notice that after the fight, one of you will be sitting in a corner crying for the rest of your lives (a bit too much on the emphasis :twisted: ), and let it be the exploiting pures who saw all their hard works has failed them, not the rightful player which would be you.

 

 

 

Sorry if I have offended you if you are a pure, but if a pure can counter a non pure, then the non pure has all rights, and morally should, counter it back.

[elit9]

It's "bad" because it doesn't let your opponent KO you. Realistically, safing isn't even nearly in the same league as practices like running, pjing, or tagging; the reason it's "bad" is simply the fact that safing means that your opponent needs to actually stand there and fight you.

 

 

 

Granted, if you wind up eating every time you get below 3/4 HP, you won't ever have a chance to actually attack your opponent, so you're basically just taking damage/wasting food. That would be a downside of safing (the other downside being those vicious internet insults you will receive), but that is another story.

[Tim]

[hide=Quoted St00f]

I would rather safe then die.

 

 

 

Exactly. You rather not die. So go fight the other people that are out there for loot.

 

 

 

Some people are out there because they enjoy the risk, as well as the higher chance of rewards. Therefore, it's courtesy to fight people with an equal attitude towards the chances of dying. If you choose to safe, and whoever you're fighting would rather not waste their food and time, then they're at perfect liberty to run.

 

 

 

Flaming IS an issue though. The way I see it, just telling the other person you don't want to fight is fine. Calling people safers doesn't make things better. The only reason anyone should flame for this is if you persist in trying to attack them even if they've made it clear they will not fight you.

[/hide]

 

its also tactics to assure yourself you dont die as well. i WILL eat if some nutjob (this is back when pk was in the wilderness mind you) decides to jump on me and kill me, expecting to loot dragonhide and a dds. im not going to sit there and go "here you go, have my gear, would you like some tea with that?" no, im going to attack them back in a manner that bests fit me. its like someone with 99str versing a guy with 99def. the 99str rose his strength to hit higher, while the defender rose defence to reduce damage. its how different people fight and regardless i dont care if its shunned. but i will shun you if you say "eating noob" or "farcasting noob" when they do the exact thing towards me to begin with, then i'll just go all out with what i have.

 

 

 

at the end of the day, there just cheesed off because things didn't go their way, its life. its like asking your boss for a pay rise, he says no, then you tell him to play in traffic. :-s

[Rock Hard]

 

its also tactics to assure yourself you dont die as well. i WILL eat if some nutjob (this is back when pk was in the wilderness mind you) decides to jump on me and kill me, expecting to loot dragonhide and a dds. im not going to sit there and go "here you go, have my gear, would you like some tea with that?" no, im going to attack them back in a manner that bests fit me. its like someone with 99str versing a guy with 99def. the 99str rose his strength to hit higher, while the defender rose defence to reduce damage. its how different people fight and regardless i dont care if its shunned. but i will shun you if you say "eating noob" or "farcasting noob" when they do the exact thing towards me to begin with, then i'll just go all out with what i have.

 

 

 

at the end of the day, there just cheesed off because things didn't go their way, its life. its like asking your boss for a pay rise, he says no, then you tell him to play in traffic. :-s

 

 

 

Being jumped by a 'pker' while skilling and then safing in order to flee, is entirely differen't to safing during consensual combat. And isn't really relevant to a safing discussion at all.

 

 

 

In F2p, other than level 40 1 def pure fights, fights lasted a LONG time, a lot of blue 0's would be hit, and very few 20+'s would be scored. Suffice to say that unless you were RR Pking, it was very easy to escape the wilderness with just a couple of food spare by simply running out.

 

 

 

Scenario a)

 

 

 

Full rune, full invent of lobbies. Safe eating, so no chance in hell either player is getting a KO - 15 minutes of 0's, 6's, 12's and the occasional lucky high hit punctuated by lots more 0's. Player A waits til he has 4 lobbies left, and runs out of the wilderness on full HP while player B chases him, cursing his luck as he rocks out a string of 0's with his rune scimitar. That's not even taking into account the added safety net of carrying telerunes, allowing player A to flee instantly without even sparing a line of food. Or the addition of protection prayers, cutting down the already shockingly low dmg output given or taken to a level of excitement that gave thrills which would rival that of a drying paint exhibition.

 

 

 

Scenario B)

 

 

 

Player A and player B both agree to take their armor off, drastically cutting down the 0's, and forcing both to co-ordinate their eating, potting and KO combo's. Despite the fact they are hitting more often, it's still f2p, so they are hitting low - And it's still quite hard to die. Both players agree to play it dangerous, letting their HP go into the danger zone before eating up - A perfectly timed 2h could end it all for either player.

 

 

 

YES, when neither player safes; the chance of a death occurring is greatly increased. YES, that may even be your death!

 

 

 

But in all honesty, what would you prefer - Boring trip after boring trip, eventually losing more in lobbies and str pots than you get back in kills, or short, exciting fights that test your reaction speeds and grit under pressure.

 

 

 

I'd rather have a 'bloody good fight' and die, than spend 2 hours moping round, always escaping / being escaped from - bored [cabbage]-less.

 

 

 

IMHO, this is a lot less relevant in P2P, where the dmg output is so much higher and the snares so much more potent. You CAN be KO'ed even WHEN you safe in P2P, and fights are much more fast paced.

 

 

 

The old school 'honor code' wasn't a set of restrictions, it was an 'enabler' that attempted to fix a lot of drudgery of PvP that broke after RSC. It was a playing field leveler with an aim of making the wilderness more fun for everyone. In the majority of cases, safing is just an extension of this.

[fubol]

safing isn't bad

 

 

 

the pkers just don't like it cus they have more chance to be owned

 

why don't they safe also then :?:

[Rock Hard]

safing isn't bad

 

 

 

the pkers just don't like it cus they have more chance to be owned

 

why don't they safe also then :?:

 

 

 

Admit it, you didn't read what I wrote did you?

 

 

 

*-*

[Abdulla]

I think that safing is only bad in f2p, where people don't hit as hard. I think that people have a right to be angry when their opponent safes because this takes the fun out of the game. That's what we are playing for right?

 

 

 

But you have to look at it in another view. If someone is not so rich, and doesn't want to die just for a bit of fun, then maybe they are allowed to safe. I am pretty sure there is no rule against safing, so i think that it is a persons choice on the matter.

 

 

 

P2P on the other hand I think that safing is a complete waste of time, as combat is overpowered with all the specials and everything. But this is good, who wouldn't want to K0 a safer?

 

 

 

To be honest, there is a very small number of people that safe in f2p when I am there. With those people, you just have to leave them alone. You can't change them, you are just angering yourself by calling them a "safing prayer noob". Just live with it, and go find some other person.

[guywho]

i don't really care if they safe. if you play by safing and win then that is your strategy. pures don't have the guts to stay in bh for the full fight anyways

 

 

 

every time i am in i fight with pures i always get pj with some tele guy. but w/e i will stay and finish the fight with the original guy because i have the deciency to stay and finish. he will be calling me names and stuff but when some one teles to him he cries about getting double team and runs out of the crater.

 

 

 

i always death match with people unless the guy i am fight runs out first then i will leave and restock supplies.

 

 

 

if you have food use it don't worry about people say that your a safer

[Sumpta]

The last time someone tried to insult me, it was by saying 'safing ftl' when I was ranging... bloodveld. That's right, people, I wasn't in pvp combat, I was training slayer. Just to say, some people are clueless. Apparently it's cool to diss rangers, and as with everything cool, most people don't even know why they think like that. They just copy.

[Rock Hard]

The last time someone tried to insult me, it was by saying 'safing ftl' when I was ranging... bloodveld. That's right, people, I wasn't in pvp combat, I was training slayer. Just to say, some people are clueless. Apparently it's cool to diss rangers, and as with everything cool, most people don't even know why they think like that. They just copy.

 

 

 

stfu safernoob

 

 

 

[hide=];)[/hide]