Marduk_God

I only wish someone would have told me that before I went and got 99 prayer like that. Guess I'll just have to start over and do it the 'good' way around this time. ;-) In all seriousness, I did say that this method likely wasn't very efficient even back then, let alone now. Whether it's 'bad', however, that depends on your perspective. From the perspective of maximizing efficiency and experience it's bad, yeah... But like I said, I wasn't too concerned with that. It got me to 99 without having to pay too much attention, and that's what matters to me. It was not my intention to call into question the use of a BoB, only I'd no idea how bank presets affected them. Even if my post only served to showcase how to absolutely, positively not altar bones efficiently, it has served its purpose.

Both EoC and Oldschool have active communities. As to the subjective question which is better, that depends on which you prefer, I guess. I'm not active on Oldschool, but from what I've seen here and on other fora, it has a steady community and an active PvP clanbase (don't know about PvM). There aren't over 9000 people who have maxed out on OSRS (9007 on EOC as of the making of this post), and you start from a clean slate yourself. To some people that comes as a breath of fresh air: being able to train up their stats again, do quests again, to see the rush for first or second place in a given skill etc. Personally, I'd have to agree with Hedgehog/Meredith, though. I find it's more grindy than EoC-scape, which caused me to turn away from it. That, and the prospect of having to train up my stats yet again. The EoC community took a hit after the release of EoC - thousands of people quit. The rumours of its demise, as some would have it, are exaggerated however. There's still tens of thousands of players on every night. Plus, the botting/goldfarming 'community' seems to have taken a hit as well, which is a good thing. The PvP clanscene is as good as dead on EoC, but PvM is alive and kicking. If you haven't experienced the EoC system itself: it's not too bad once you get the hang of it (which shouldn't be too long), and like digunderme/Exp Nerd says: it makes a lot more sense in certain important aspects. As an ex-PvP'er I never thought I'd say this, but I actually prefer EoC over the old system. The old system was simple which had its own elegance, but it was also rather limited (not to say one-sided). I've played on and off over the past ten years and have savoured much of what the different 'eras' had to offer. I also recently came back to EoC after a hiatus of a couple of years, and I'd have to say I honestly prefer this era (say from 2011-now). The only thing I don't like about this period in the life cycle of the product that is RuneScape is the angle of microtransactions, but alas, that's the state of the industry these days. These are just my personal opinions, and well, you know what Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry had to say about those... Like digunderme/Exp Nerd suggested: give them both a whirl and see which you prefer. ;-)

Wouldn't it be slightly faster not to bother with a BoB and just use a preset bank tab? When I got 99 a year or two ago I teleported between the GE and my house. Granted, it probably wasn't the most efficient option even back then, but it got the job done none the less. As I was semi-AFK (watching movies as the bones were offered) I wasn't too concerned with maximum efficiency anyways. I chose the GE because the bank there is one-click and is visible from where your teleport arrives, and so that I could check on the items I was merching if needs be. I had oriented my chapel so that it was located in a similar position to the house teleport arrival as the GE bank was located to the GE teleport arrival - didn't even have to rotate the camera. I carried a lava staff and loaded my inventory with a stack of marrentils, a stack of law runes and a stack of air runes. The other 25 spaces were dragon bones. Teleport to house, open door, light burners, offer bones, teleport to GE, bank, rinse and repeat. Again, this is likely not very efficient nowadays.

I recently did 72-77 agility myself, also for RoTM. I did it on Ape Atoll using Skoll boots, and like balleydafrog said, completed any quest that gave a decent chunk of agility xp. On first glance at the 'available' quest list from the adventurer's log, there are three quests that immediately spring to mind which Atlanta can complete, provided he meets the requirements: Prisoner of Glouphrie grants 60,000 agility xp. Within the Light grants 35,000 agility xp. Branches of Darkmeyer grants 20,000 agility xp and three tomes of 50,000 xp which can be spent on agility. Unfortunately, Atlanta still has to complete In aid & In search of the Myreque, so this probably isn't an option as it's so far down the Myreque questline. Apart from that, Ape Atoll is likely the best xp from 70-85. The only thing for it is to stick to it. If you haven't already, use Skoll boots on agility for bonus xp. You most likely already have, though. Like BloodAngel said, put any prismatic stars here as well. Set small goals. Don't go for 73-77 or even 73-75 agility in one sitting - you'll be bored out of your mind and give up sooner rather than later. I know I would. Instead, set yourself a goal to do at least one hour of agility every day, and get the most xp you can in that hour. Listen to music or an audiobook to make things more bearable. After an hour, go do something else to liven things up. Don't pay too much attention to your xp counter, and don't count the laps you're running. If you do you will feel as if things creep along ever so slowly and you'll get bored and frustrated. Instead, right-click the agility skill and set level 77 as a goal. Pay attention to the % bar, not the xp, and try to aim for increments of 5%. This will make it feel like it goes faster. If someone else is on the agility course, try to race them in completing the obstacles. It's not much, but it gives you a small incentive to go around. There are probably more tips I've forgotten to mention here, but there is no 'short and sweet' way to do agility, I'm afraid. Good luck.

With whom do you disagree? You. You are perfectly free to disagree, of course, but your explanation didn't actually disagree with anything I said - which is why you had me a little confused there. The basic premise of our arguments is to all intents and purposes very similar, if not the same - based on negative associations, and a disavowal of anything 'childish' because of peer pressure. Why do kids pick on each other? To appear cool to their social environment. In this context, trying to 'appear cool' and 'appear serious/adult' is basically the same difference.

With whom do you disagree?

What makes it a bit of a shunned topic in many circles is the age demographic it's most often associated with. RuneScape is, for all intents and purposes, considered a kiddies' game. The rather patronising and often blundering way Jagex communicates with the playerbase also factors into this. Many of their articles are designed in a way as if they consider themselves to be talking to (what they see as) ten to twelve-year olds. In the end, it's not the game itself that is to blame, or Jagex' antics, or even the community. It's the meaning that is attributed to all these things that is pivotal - the association with childish and immature behaviour (cfr. Seignobos - signifier & signified). Once you grow past that stage, you'll notice that most of the people who look at it from that specific pejorative angle are generally people who are acutely aware of their social environment and want to be perceived as 'serious' and 'adult' - because of that they want to disavow any and all association with things that (what they perceive) are considered 'childish' and 'immature'.

If you want to know more about the 2007 version, you can find more information about it in the thread about that topic in this same subsection. :) I'm not saying that to diss you or anything, it's just preferable to keep this topic from spilling over into other threads (the 200m one, and here). To answer your question, though: they are not removing EOC. Jagex has decided to implement an older version of RS (august 2007) separately - similar to how classic servers are still playable. From what I've read in the thread about it on this forum, the 2007 servers will be able to support about 100K players. The result will be two separate versions of the same game with the current (EOC) version still being the 'main' game. People can still communicate with each other (similar to how classic and current RS players can communicate), but you can only play (be logged into) one version at a time. If you decide to play 2007scape, you start from scratch - level 1 skills and empty bank. The "poll" is merely a means to garner interest, the decision had been taken before the poll was implemented. If you vote on the poll, you do get the first month of 2007scape for free, however. Oh, and the 2007 servers are going live tonight, unless I'm mistaken. More information is in the 2007 thread. It's a long thread, but the first few pages are probably worth reading through.

Don't you feel sorry for Diango by now? Cut him some slack in this alt universe :P I just had a brilliant image of Diango moaning about how times have changed, and in his day people didn't need to pay for extra stuff. I think a lottery type system would work best for rares... Might upset some people as they think they deserve them for being RSC players, but it is the fairest way to give them out. I agree with PoorLepRecon. Why not just make every single rare (holiday) item obtainable from Diango for free, and make it untradeable between players? This mechanism would be similar to how you can get back any holiday item from him that you've found but lost. Or just get rid of them altogether. They were never supposed to be anything more than purely cosmetic items anyway, and there is absolutely no 'fair' way of giving them out if they're only obtainable through drop (from event in the game world) or lottery and trade (between players). A lottery is not fair either - it may be random, but only those people participating in the lottery stand a chance. Those who join 2007scape later have no way of getting one short of trading for one - and it's the same thing all over again. Jagex has always lamented the unbalanced effect they had on the economy (being in effect the most expensive items). If anything, this is their chance to start with a clean slate. What else is the point of everyone starting from zero (level 1 stats, no bank) if they're just going to chuck in a bunch of holiday items at random, thereby creating unbalancing effects in the long run? If you want to have them, just make them free and untradeable between players. Everybody's happy. Except for the people who had hoped to use them to gain a monetary advantage through speculation.

It wouldn't really make much sense to put them in, though. Jagex has been mentioning for years how they never intended for rare (holiday) items to become so valuable, in the process unbalancing the economy. If anything, this should be their chance to get it right.

I'm afraid you're bringing logic into a discussion where the principal argument relies on sentiment (nostalgia). I'm not saying that to dissuade your reply, because you do have a point, and I thank you for raising it - I'm just saying many people are argumenting from two fundamentally different points of view here.

In theory, a goal of making money is indeed not necessarily incompatible with a policy of integrity and adhering to a certain ethos. In theory.

I didn't know the large bag was potentially worth that much. :oops: I did read the update but for some reason I must've read over the figures. I was actually a bit surprised when I saw it amounted to that much, which I why I posted it. I had expected a more linear evolution from small to large (because I apparently read right over the amounts each could give). Most I've ever gotten (as a cash reward) was 50k (uncommon iirc) so for me personally, this is a rather large difference. :P

2041 total, large cash bag, 1 438 112 gp (1,44m rounded up)... To be fair, though, it was a rare prize (red).

Biased video is biased. Correct summed it up pretty nicely, though. The game has been through some changes over the years, not all of them for the better. So have the players, though, they've grown up and either adapted or moved on. You can theoretically go back to RS as it was back then, but you can't go back to who you were in 2006. Besides, the core game mechanics haven't changed at all between 2004 (post RS2) and 2012 (pre-EOC). For all intents and purposes, 2006 RS would be pretty much the same as 2012 RS... At least as far as F2P and PvP'ing are concerned, which is largely what the whole '2006 RS craze' is on about. The community is gone and isn't coming back. In the end, this is going to go the same way as classic did. People will check it out for nostalgic purposes but since it's nothing 'new' and it's not going to be updated they will eventually become disenchanted with the illusion. You can't relive a memory.

I would like to address some points of the "don't you trust me" article. I thought it was fairly well-written and I thank the author for taking the time and effort to write it, but I'm afraid for me personally it eventually failed to deliver the impact for which it was set up. I'll not toot the horn of the author too much here, but will get right to the point. While I agree with the gist of it, there are two key concepts I fundamentally disagree with, and a third concept that I personally find of the utmost importance but which is surprisingly omitted. It is not because the item is purely virtual by nature that any value that is attributed to it must be purely virtual or merely sentimental as well. If you've spent both real time and real money (in the form of paying for membership) to obtain those items, then they obviously do have a value beyond the strictly sentimental. After all: is this not the very reason why gold farming and RWT are such endemic problems with MMOPRPG's? If the items did not have any "real" value, these would simply not exist. Until recently, this was a huge problem, because precisely as virtual property was not deemed to have any value beyond the purely virtual, there was little or no regulation concerning virtual property in videogames. Only recently has this begun to change, with courts recognising the "real" value inherent even to "virtual" property. And rightly so, I should think. I'm afraid I cannot agree with this, for two fundamental reasons. First of all, the most important difference between RS and real life is that in real life, your actions are always bound by a framework created by (the theory of) law and the enforcement thereof, and the expectations and control of the social environment which all together impose order upon a society that would otherwise be inherently chaotic. This framework serves as a check against unappropriate behaviour and abuse. It's far more complex than this, of course; because this framework is not purely artificial or implemented top-down: we teach our young to adhere to this framework, which they subconsciously integrate into their personal behaviour. Their norms and values, which are partly determined by their personal disposition, are also strongly influenced by this framework. As they grow up and take their place in the adult world, a larger group of people can subsequently agree to share a certain set of norms and values, which in turn helps give shape to the perpetuation of this framework. That's also partly the reason why society is so slow to change: while there is room for change or "improvement" (which is subjective, hence the brackets) it is always rooted deeply into the existing framework. This is intertwined with my second argument for disagreeing with the metaphor: without this imposed order, this layer of veneer if you will; there is no check against unappropriate behaviour. There is no such thing as a "natural state" where two (or more) people innately share the same set of norms and values and abide by them. Everyone has different norms and values, a different sense of what is right and what is wrong, everyone has different principles and scruples, etc. This is inherently chaotic. While some people can indeed agree to share a similar set of values and norms (it is wrong to steal, it is wrong to kill), others will choose to adhere to a different set of values and norms. In order to regulate and impose some (subjective) order upon a society which otherwise would be inherently chaotic, the aforementioned framework is created. This is not wholly an external or artificial process, but it is not exactly "natural" either. In order to protect society from inappropriate behaviour that is deemed harmful to the majority of the social group, social expectations are created and controlled, and laws are formulated and enforced. This framework is not entirely objective as well, because it is skewed towards "the majority" and/or those who are in power. In short, I personally think a driver does not run over a passer-by not because of some unwritten bond of "trust" between them, I think he does not run over a passer-by because he is bound by the combination of his personal norms and values, by the social expectation of the environment, and by the law, all of which interact with one another, and which together form some sort of 'framework'. So, what the passer-by really trusts is that the driver will adhere to the framework that is imposed upon them both. To couple this back to RS: it does have a set of rules, which, however, are not/cannot be strictly enforced. Botting, gold-farming and RWT are rampant, and legal measures against this are slow to be implemented (partly, again, because of the difficult question which value is to be attributed to "virtual" property). Most importantly, however, the expectations and control of the social environment are lacking almost completely. One of the key issues with gaming, online interpersonal behaviour and "virtual" property is the veil of anonimity involded. People play avatars in an online realm, and as a result they don't realize (or don't want to realize) they're interacting with real people behind the pixels, nor do they feel bound by social conventions that would help regulate their behaviour in the real world. Isn't that something that is heard all too often ("they're just pixels") to excuse the most atrocious of interpersonal behaviour, cheating at the expense of others, RWT and the like? To me, that's a key concept which is missing. P.S.: I should like to point out that it's not my intention at all to discredit the author or the article, the above is merely intended as constructive criticism and feedback. It was an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it, which is why I went to the effort of opening some sort of 'debate'. I feel the author doesn't make a bad case, I just think it could have been better (no patronizing intended). I would also like to apologize for the somewhat 'ranting' or 'berating' tone of this piece, I didn't have much (spare) time to compose it in and as such it's pretty much written down as it sprang to mind. My piece lacks elegance and eloquence, and could perhaps have done with a little more sophistication and subtlety; but at least I hope my points of contention are somewhat clear and relatively structured.

The only way someone can get past your pin is if someone knows it (and you've been hacked by someone you're familiar with, which might fit into the idea of someone recovering your account) or if it's a really aggressive type of keylogger that takes pictures of the screen at certain intervals (for example: everytime you click a mouse button, such as when you insert your pin). Most keyloggers are variations of a basic version that only captures keystrokes (and can't capture mouseclicks, such as when you insert your pin). An easy way to counter most keyloggers (apart from account and general internet security, of course) is by using the on-screen keyboard to insert your password (available in start - all programs - accessories - ease of access/accessability). Keyloggers that can capture images are more complex than the basic version and as such are rather rare, most hackers wouldn't bother with that unless they're really out to get you. The 'dropping chaotics' thing fits into this as well - most hackers wouldn't care enough to go to such drastic lengths. Is there any chance someone would be looking to screw you over? In any case I'd strongly advise a virus-scan as soon as possible. If it's a keylogger you'll want to get rid of it as quickly as you can.

Then don't train those skills. ;-) I'm never going to have 99 runecrafting, for example, or 99 agility or even 99 hunter simply because I can't stand those skills. I can still enjoy the game perfectly fine without them, however (except for when I'm dungeoneering). Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to tell people how the game should be played. That's the base line: some people play grindscape, some people play effigyscape. In the grand scheme of things, I don't care either way - to each their own. As long as they don't bot, I'm happy. If I'm perfectly honest, I can't say this update (where it concerns effigies) matters all that much to me - though I am of course biased simply because 'effigyscape' has never been a viable option to me. If it had been, chances are I'd be reacting differently. I do understand where others are coming from, though. All this talk about 'it's not how RS was ment to be played', that's poppycock as far as I'm concerned. It has been one of the various viable ways for over a year and a half. This update might have been welcome back then, a few weeks after effigies were first introduced to the game. While I actually agree it's a mistake they've now rectified, it sure has taken them their sweet time. Cracking down on it this hard over a year and a half later surely wasn't necessary when a simple tweak to drop and/or xp rates would have sufficed.

I think one of the main problems is people undercutting each other and being impatient at merchanting wanting to make a quick buck while not taking into account the peculiarities of the market exchange in RS. There's more people returning to the game than before, and I'd wager at least some of them try their hand at flipping (such as the old dicers, as you say). The market is also somewhat more volatile now than a couple of months ago. Immediately after the bot nuke, many items first skyrocketed in anticipation of the actual price rise, and later dropped again when people dumped the stock they'd saved up on the market. Those prices later rose again, but more gradually this time. There's also been a return of bots the past few months (sorc's garden, for example) which also has an effect on prices (though not as much as before). An experienced flipper knows not to undercut, as this leads to increasingly diminishing returns and in some cases even causes a cascade effect. Just to give an example: about half of the item's I'm flipping on a regular basis usually wind up being undercut relatively quickly. This is mostly the case for the more well-known flipping items. It's annoying because I'm constantly having to adjust the margins to keep up (while not undercutting, of course). I still make some profit, but not much, and less than a couple of months ago. The other half of items I'm flipping is still profitable, but these are items that flipped somewhat less frequently while still being in demand. Still, even with these I do find myself checking and re-checking offers more frequently than before to ensure I'm not being undercut - and even with these items, it still happens more frequently than before. In some rare cases I've had the cascade effect occur with an item that's normally stable, where a previously profitable 3%-5% profit margin evaporates in a matter of minutes. Now that's something that's annoying, because you have no way to see it coming. I've had certain items that I'd been flipping for several hours, adjusting the margins by a couple of gp every once in a while (5-10 gp) to keep up with the price changes suddenly drop a full 100 or more gp in a matter of mere minutes (this constituting just about the entire profit margin).

It appears as if people who haven't logged on in quite a while (despite their previous account status (members or not) and accomplishments (levels, xp)) can have their name taken, and then will have their (original) names changed to a random string of letters and numbers (such as ghg87esk90) and will be prompted to choose a new name before they can play again. At least, that what it sounds like from the thread on the RSOF. LOL. Waiting to see how long it takes for The Old Nite to be taken, or O N I O N, or Zonghui or any of the legends of old... Not a bad update per se, but imo they should have sticked to accounts that had been permanently banned, or have been inactive for over a set period of time (5 years or so) and were below a set number of levels/experience. Not sure if that's the case currently, the message the OP has quoted suggests this but the thread says something else.

Random events don't actually serve any purpose apart from inconveniencing bots and macro's - and even then, most of them could be circumvented. In the end, they're just as much an inconvenience to legitimate players as they are intended to be to macroing. For example: if I want to break monotomy, I just go do something else or stop playing entirely. If I want xp, I'll train the skill. I don't need random events to "spice" things up for me. Truth be told, I've pretty much hated them ever since they were implemented in the first place (they were only introduced in rs2, and replaced the fatigue system which was equally annoying). I mean, I pay to play the game the way I want to play it. Not to have "random events" forced onto me every once in a while, interfering with the way I want to play. Sure, they only happen once in a while and it doesn't take too long to do them, but it's still something I could do perfectly without. To me, they're nothing but an inconvenience, and a rather bothersome at that (yes, I'm looking at you, Leo the gravedigger). Some of them require you to complete the event before even being allowed to leave (they have no "refuse" option), while others teleport you away if you refuse to do them. In all cases, you can't just ignore them and be on your merry way - you have to solve them first. That being said, those "interesting" events were actually some of the worst of them all. River trolls and golems that attack you when you're fishing or mining (not to mention the evil chicken or the zombie?) (Pick-)axe heads that fly away, or even downright break when you're woodcutting? No thanks - that's beyond a mere annoyance, that's downright intrusive. But, of course, by this time I'm sure they're pretty much considered a "tradition". :-(

Oh look, it's that attitude again. Umadbro? There's no need to be pedantic or adversarial. You do realise reinforcing your argument might just have been the whole point of my contribution, no? What a shocking new concept, agreeing with someone! Yes, your point didn't require reinforcement, but if I should refrain from contributing to a thread you've posted in just because I happen to agree with you, there might just be bigger issues on the horizon than reiterating a previously stated point. There certainly isn't any need to be pedantic about it, since I didn't just throw around meaningless quotes or '²' you without adding anything new to the discussion.

When you're making a resume, I'd also recommend to pay at least some attention to the way you present yourself (and your skills/talents/achievements). Think about it. Most people just do the same, boring, bland, unoriginal thing everyone else does when it comes to making a resume, without realising that they do it. When you're applying for a job and the person in charge of sollicitations receives a resume that looks almost exactly like the dozens of other resumes he's received so far, chances are he won't be very much interested in the contents. A resume that, at first sight, looks like the person that made it actually paid attention to detail, layout and appearance is more likely to catch his interest. Initial appearances can be very important. As far as the contents of the resume are concerned (your skills and talents), I'd say this is a matter of poetic licence. Don't make up blatant lies about yourself, but don't be afraid to embellish a little. In fact, it's gotten to the point where the employers themselves write out job applications with pretty absurd requirements. For example, my employer recently wrote out a job application for the position of secretary (=purely administrative work). It required being fluent in four different languages (Dutch, English, French, German), being a 'dynamic' and 'flexible' individual (read: no 9/5 job but moving hours and alot of overtime), you had to be good in a team but perform well alone as well. At least four years of experience in a similar job were required to apply. Oh, and "having a PhD is an advantage". The pay, however, was on the level of someone who'd just graduated high school (!), with zero extra benefits (no company car etc.). To ask that level of competence for that amount of pay is utterly ridiculous.

Apart from the aforementioned reasons, you're also paying for a product. The achievement cape isn't as much a "reward" for having attained 99 in a skill as much as getting 99 in a skill gives you the right to purchase said cape. A nuance, albeit an important one. That, and they don't use ordinary wool for them capes. They're woven out of pure epicness.