Deletion

I'm saying that because, as a generalization, the strong advocates for this project seem to, a) Over-estimate how enjoyable and popular the project is going to be (It's not a time-warp hence it's not going to be the same, and EoC is not nearly as unpopular as the vocal minority make out) and, b) Are all about self-gratification and don't think about the possible consequences to the main game by skewing the interest in the project. In my personal opinion the project is going to be relative failure, and have no interest in playing it. Hence I'm abstaining from voting. Edit: You're doing something wrong if the game is unplayable to you currently. I play perfectly fine on a 5 year old laptop which when it was new was at best a mid-range laptop.

First, good luck getting a DDS, second I bet most people don't even know how to get those weapons, let alone want to skill for them. And the PvP won't be the same because the people are different, you watch pking in recent years and teleing away and [bleep] fests run rampant. Its the community back then that made pking what it was, not how you did the pking. Yeah, I bet the players of 2007 and before don't know how to get a dds. The players that will truely be playing this will be pkers from that era... And if not I don't mind no honour pking, it's really how I did the pking else I would still be pking... Derp, this comment made no sense, jayc. I'm curious, do you actually think 07scape is going to be a successful? Because in my opinion a majority of the returning players are going to be those that want to PvP as they did in that era of RuneScape. How do you think they're going to enjoy no xp-multipliers, no item spawning and what ever else happens in private servers which make them successful due to the ability to hop on a be Pking within a couple of hours? I don't know, I just can't see those people spending months making a character just to PvP like they did in '07, let alone hanging around until the marketplace is stable and able to handle that kind of demand.

But at what cost? His friends, family, life? He also doesn't have the "completionist" cape.

Look, if you don't like grinding then go play a different game - it's that simple. No, it's not. Different parts of the game cater to different people. Back in ye olde days, that was one of the game's strengths. Replacing those other play styles and niches with grinding alienates the players that favored them. Can you provide examples? I would agree that from going from a new player to end-game content now takes longer than it used to. But that's a result of the game being older, and giving updates catering to the to the increasingly higher-levelled player-base. I agree that it would make the game more appealing to a wider majority of people. But I can't say whether it not it would benefit the current community. I hear this quite often, and I'm not sure if I believe it or not. Has the game actually shifted towards being more grind-orientated than it was, or does it just appear that way because the population base is higher-levelled compared to what it was and hence it requires more investment than it previously did to be in the same position relative to everyone else? Again; I've heard this a lot but I'm not sure whether I believe it. Is it really the grind that is the majoy contributor to the declining playerbase? I don't know. In my opinion, the game will be attracting (and keeping), generally, the same type of players as before - those that enjoy grinding. But less of them due to the out-datedness of the game and the prevalence of similar games in the market.

Sort of: >Grinding has always been a core part of the game; >Grinding isn't necessarily good or bad for the game. It just caters to specific people; >Therefore it's ridiculous to play said game when you don't enjoy this core part and ridiculous to complain about it - especially due to the first point. As for Yoko; Look, if you don't like grinding then go play a different game - it's that simple.

That point was more to reiterate that the game isn't moving towards grinding, but has instead always been about grind and built from that. I agree that grinding isn't necessarily good for the game - but to complain about grinding in a game which has been built around, and continues to be about grinding is ridiculous. As for your question; it depends and how you intend on reducing grind and increasing fun.

From your second linked article and the first article follows a similar train of thought - That's the entire point of my argument. Your original point in this thread is that they aren't moving the game away from grinding towards "fun". My counter-point, and one you agree with based on the articles you wrote and linked to, is that you shouldn't be playing this game if you don't enjoy grind. So hence; a) The game continuing to be a grind is not a problem as it is the premise the game was built on, and b) In a more general sense; If you don't like grind, stop playing a damn game which is based around grinding!

My point was that if you don't like the core gameplay of a game, why not go play something else that you do enjoy? You're welcome to disagree, and I would like to see a counter-argument, but Runescape is a grind-based game, it always has been. I don't know, maybe it's just me - but I wouldn't play a game which always has been about grinding if I didn't like grinding. Why bother botting a game which you don't enjoy the premise behind? There's so many games with better PvP, PvM and what ever else you can argue which the grind leads up to. So why play Runescape at all if you don't like grinding? It's stupid. This quote is what gets me: Why do these people bother playing at all? I feel like I'm just repeating myself over and over (probably because I am). But if Runescape isn't a game based around grinding then what is it? And if you don't like grinding, why play it at all?

Maybe I'm missing the point; but if you don't enjoy grind why would you want to play a grinding-based game? I mean sure you could argue there are some end-game non-grind based activities. But really, at its core, Runescape is a grind-based game and I honestly can't see the point in playing it if you don't like grind.

Feel free to correct me--I haven't checked any metagaming forums in a while--but I haven't seen any so-called "metagamer" worth their salt actually say that. Dual weapons have less overkill and higher crit chance than 2h weapons. That's why they're better than 2hs with momentum. I've said that a lot so I guess I must not be worth my salt. I wonder where people get the idea of 'Higher crit chance when dual wielding' from, when you have the same amount of crit chance between two weapons, wouldn't it, on average, have the same % of critical hits (IE the % dps increase due to the the critical stikes should be the same)? Sure, the greater number of hits, the less deviation from the average (and the greater NUMBER of critical hits), but I still do not understand why people say dual wield is better at triggering critical hits when their average is the same... Also, from the posts, everybody have been comparing abilities with abilities and momentum with momentum, are there any solid data of comparing abilities to momentum? I don't think I have seen any statements stating which is better... (I am inclined to think that, given similar circumstances, 2h abilities will win against DW momentum for the same tier at least due the total lack of aoe abilities with dual wield, and thus slowing kills in places where enemies tend to be clumped together) I could be wrong - but from my understanding dual-wield weapons would have an advantage in the critical hit area for the same reasoning as over-kill while using momentum? In that a higher number of smaller critical hits (or in the case of over-kill; regular hits) are preferable over a smaller number of large critical hits given the same DPS (on a target with infinite health) on a target with non-infinite health? So both weapon speed, and the fact you are using two weapons (even though the DPS gain overall, on a target with infinite health, caused by critical hits are the same) give dual-wield weapons an advantage while using momentum.

True enough, as a generalisation. But for a select amount of people it will. Secondly, I was referring to the general case of dual-wielding, rather this specific case - sorry if I wasn't clear.

Why is dual-wielding (of an equivalent tier) worse than a 2h-handed weapon while using Momentum? Shouldn't dual-wielding be slightly better due to reduced over-kill?

I'm fairly sure the Siren/Cyclops voyages (and hence one would assume the missions to unlock other unique crew members from other regions) keep reappearing randomly in standard voyages until you complete them. I failed the siren voyage twice and succeeded on my third attempt.

I definitely agree with you on basic abilities, but, and maybe I'm imagining this, the damage bonus seemed to 'stack' with threshold and ultimate abilities? I could be completely wrong and it's just confirmation bias, but it seemed to me that Dharok was hitting harder than the CM with higher abilities.

This is anecdotal, but it seems to me (from my limited experience - QBD only) Dharok is still the best, just not nearly as over-powered as it was.

God, how many times are we going to see people say "I don't like it any more and therefore nobody else should". Get over yourself.

Just a side-note for any one who is planning on testing this; From my experience and according to the EoC thread, to get the best kill-speed with Magic it is worth waiting for an auto-attack to fire then using an ability rather than just ability-spamming like Melee and Range due to the way staves (and wands) work (damage from your weapon is not added to abilities). I'm sure someone else can give a more in-depth explanation than me.

3 Penance Aura's worth of QBD, 2 visages and 2 Crossbow components. Makes up for no Visages on the way to 99 Slayer. Pity they're now only ~2m.

Wrong. That way you get the most xp off your aura, but you save the same amount of time (15 minutes) as any skill below this xp/hr. As has previously been stated the "best" (most efficient) use is the skill which saves you the maximum amount of time (15 minutes; any skill where the most efficient method is 200k xp/hr or less) and the most money.

Tell him to use Revo-Uninstaller to uninstall Java. I had problems with my Java and uninstalling it via the Control Panel didn't help, but uninstalling it with Revo cleaned up all the registry files associated with it which fixed my problem.

Dungeoneering by a long way.

I've seen this posted quite a bit, can you explain why? I assume it's the passive effects? Because stat-wise dual CLS's should surely have higher DPS?

What you can gain from Bafflers spreadsheet is that all skills where xp/hr is less than 200k/hr save the same amount of time (15 minutes). So it is theoretically most efficient to do a buyable skill whose, when doing the most efficient method, xp/hr is less than 200k and costs the most (saves 15 minutes + money). The only skills I can think of which fit this are smithing (Addy plates and below 88; superheating gold ore) and potentially crafting (battlestaves are slightly more than 200k xp/hr). Out of the two smithing is probably the best and easiest (hard to stock up on large amounts of battlestaves). I am personally going to use mine on Agility as it is one of my least enjoyable skills and I'm not too worried about saving money.

To quote Aerendil from the EoC thread: As far as I'm aware this information is still current, and soloing basically sounds infeasible to me.

I was more meaning does anyone know if dual-wielding is working correctly, or if it is an actual issue? Seems stupid to me to spend this much effort to balance the weapons in the game across their tiers and then make one of the news systems highly anticipated features fairly redundant for anything other than use with Momentum.