compfreak847

I don't think a community-based ban system is a good idea, especially given the (relatively) low average age on these boards. A system of responsible moderators and admins is probably the best option, but they need to communicate with the board, and if necessary, explain why certain punishments were handed out. More importantly, they should be able to admit when they've made mistakes, and take actions to correct them.

Good times indeed :) I wasn't always right, but it certainly was fun to argue about it.

Odd how the same reason I left is resurfacing. Though I can't say I'm completely against the mods\admins on this one.

It does apply. The OP is drawing a correlation between old wild going away and search terms for RS declining. He's then implying a causation based on that. We're calling bull [cabbage]. The OP says that the graph is of the "runescape population over time", and goes on to state that the wilderness removal is what caused the decline. However, I'm not arguing about the second part of that statement - the first part is fundamentally flawed. After I pointed out that the graph was of search terms, not RS players, the OP decided that search terms were indicative of population, and continued on into the second part about the wilderness. I disagree with the first part - I don't think search trends accurately reflect population for reasons indicated in my previous post. I'm arguing that there is not a direct, linear association - we've never even gotten to the 'correlation' part. Additionally, using the term 'correlation' between the old wild going away and search terms for RS declining is still wrong. Correlation requires two quantitative variables in direct comparison; the removal of the wilde4rnes is an event, not a quantitative datum. As such, he is trying to promote a cause and effect relationship, not correlation. The overused phrase "Correlation does not imply causation" is irreleveant in this thread; at no point has anyone yet arguged about the causation of two quantitative variables. In my case, I'm arguing against the association of two variables, search terms and players; however, I've yet to hear anyone, including the OP, insinuate a causation (in which the number of searches for RS would, in and of themselves, cause a change in population).

it's a graph of unique visits of rs.com it's relevant because every time someone wants to play runescape they must visit the site. Perhaps people are more aware of Runescape and are visiting the site directly instead of searching for it, or are simply using other search engines (the rise in popularity of Bing could play a factor) when they are looking for Runesacpe. ^If that is true, and Google is only tracking the hits from people who search RS through Google, my money is on that. I bet most people playing RS today have it on their favorites, or some type of bookmark system to get there quickly. But it DOES mean a decline in new people.. And all people who are playing will at some point grow tired.. So a game can only exist if there keeps coming a group of new player base! No. It means that fewer people are searching for the term "Runescape" on Google - nothing more, nothing less. We can use this to infer that there are fewer new players, but that can be a rather risky assumption. There are plenty of opportunities for lurking variables; I provided a few in my post above, but there are certainly many others. For example, Jagex's new advertising campaigns including the direct domain, Runescape.com, could result in more players visiting the site directly instead of searching for more information on it. Another potential variable could be the increase in internet proficiency of players - I've done plenty of consulting work for people who visited web sites - every time - by typing the word into Google and clicking on the first term that came up (Think visiting google.com, typing in facebook, clicking search, and clicking the first link to facebook.com). There is a multitude of other potential causes, many of which could have a significant impact on search trends without being immediately obvious. The phrase 'correllation does not imply causation', said before by other posters, does not really apply - in this case, we're arguing about whether or not there's an association between two variables: google search trends and overall players. Since we have very limited data on the latter variable, it's hard to point to the first and say that it dictates the second when we have no markers by which to gauge its past performance, and we are forced to assume that the two are closely related with little evidence to go on and a plethora of confounding variables.

it's a graph of unique visits of rs.com it's relevant because every time someone wants to play runescape they must visit the site. No. It's a Google Trends graph, showing the number of searches for Runescape on Google over time: [source] While it may be an interesting performance marker, it's not necessarily indicative of an overall trend. For example, look at Jagex's financial reports released by me [The username, not myself :)]; though they are somewhat out of date (the latest being July 2009), they show a decline and resurgence around 07-09 (I know, membership hikes may have skewed that to some extent as well) that is not indicated by Google Trends. Perhaps people are more aware of Runescape and are visiting the site directly instead of searching for it, or are simply using other search engines (the rise in popularity of Bing could play a factor) when they are looking for Runesacpe. Unfortunately, there are currently no good traffic markers out for us to judge Runescape's popularity by. The most reliable figures we have are direct quotes on membership and account numbers from Jagex themselves, but they tend to be few and far between. Most web stats, from Alexa to Ranking.com, are highly inaccurate; they generally sample only a small fraction of the population (In Alexa's case, only the people with toolbars installed) and reflect web trends as a whole - Alexa reports in percentages relative to overall internet traffic, meaning that a stead value actually represents a growth rate equal to the rest of the internet. But yes, I would agree that Runescape's popularity does seem to be waning slightly. The most likely causes are the increasing numbers of bots (seen frequently in my own playing) and a sense of increasing disconnect between players and the company. Bringing the wilderness back may be a good idea, although the poll seems to stray a bit into 'publicity event' areas, but it seems to be generating a considerable amount of interest and will potentially re-introduce many players to the game (and their friends along with them). Still, I don't think Jagex is in any serious difficulties yet - subscriber numbers are still very high, and as several financial statements show, they have plenty of spare cash and major revenue sources. I also suspect that, as a pet project of the Growers, the company will remain even if profits take a serious hit. In short, though we don't really know, it is indeed possible that membership is declining. Still, it's not really something to worry about; RS has many years ahead of it unless Jagex manages to severely mess up major aspects of the game, and they seem to be actively working to improve it (Dungeneering is a good example) in ways that will reverse the trend and increase its popularity. Sorry, I felt the need to post since this is a topic I find interesting. I'll slip back into lurking mode now :)

I agree with the above posters. Multitasking is the reason for dual-monitor existence. Unless you have 3 equally sized monitors, the bezels get in the way too much when using one game across two monitors. Crossfire\SLI is a surprisingly bad option. It scales less then perfectly, and can cause headaches with a lot of games. With a few exceptions, your better off going for a better single card at the same price of 2 cheaper SLI\Crossfire units. The only time it's truely handy is when upgrading or running *ahem* with the absolute top graphics. I've owned both SLI GTX 295s (Water cooled, overclocked to the ragged, bleeding edge) and Crossfire 5870s (Still working on 5970s...), and take it from me - SLI\Crossfire is a pain to setup in games that don't natively support it (and generally, onlly mainstream ones do). Plus, the microstutter issues in the 4xxx and (partially) 5xxx can force you to remove a card, and ATI still has quite a few driver issues to work out. But if you've got the money and want to run Crysis 2 on high without it looking like a powerpoint visual effects presentation, crossfire\SLI is the way to go. Also, nice system for the money. The 4890 can't really handle the latest and greatest any more, but it does pretty close - tweak a few settings and you'll be hitting 40-50+ FPS.

Around 95 watts per display, so close to 260. Then again, my computer pulls 794. Now then, what were you saying about the monitors? :unsure: Oh, and I do turn them off, but unfortunately that OCed and overvolted i7 still chews through a good 150w on its own. And since it's a server, it runs 24\7\365. :twisted:

Right click on your desktop and click properties. Go to the monitor tab, and tel it to extend your display instead of duplicate. Exact details vary from OS to OS, but it's not too tricky to figure out.

I meant it more of a "what computer do you play runescape on?" thread than a competition, I originally posted it in questionnaires and wanted a question in the title. Your argument is quite a standard PC vs Mac one and is valid, but you don't have a mac :) You would have to pay a lot of money to get a display anywhere near the quality of the imac's too. I paid £1400 for the imac, you can get a 30 inch screen from Dell which would be similar (slightly bigger with 2560x1600 resolution) for £1100. I feel like I've bagged a bargain to be honest. There are screens better then the iMac out there; the dell is generally considered to match if not beat theirs. Also, the new Dell monitors use the same source for LCD panels as Apple (http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/02/10/dell.ultrasharp.u2711.hits.2560x1440/), so your paying £300 extra for a shiny picture of an apple on the front. The main disadvantage is that the iMac doesn't natively support 3 monitors, and the third party USB dongles have terrible graphics performance. You have to move into Eyefinity setups. Three monitors really is preferable, as your primary display is directly in front of you instead of to the side. It also works great for 3D gaming, as the important stuff isn't obscured by a bezel and you still get a wider field of view. Running RSHD isn't really a symbol of graphics horsepower - my 2 year old laptop that I sold for $460 could run RSHD maxed with 4x AA etc. at 1920x1200. Pretty much any modernish computer with discreet graphics can handle it.

It's really a lot easier then it sounds. You have to try one in person to see the advantages. I have the sensitivity set high enough that moving the mouse back and forth 1/4" flicks it across all three screens. But thanks to its high (3200) DPI, I still have fine-grained sniper control. For those 100m+ shots, I simply use its dynamic DPI shifting tool - press one button and my mouse is 1/5th as sensitive, press another and it's back to normal. Mousing with lots of screen real estate isn't a big issue with a decent mouse. Focsing can be difficult, but only if your trying to play on all three monitors at once - play on one and leave other stuff in the other two, and you'll never have a problem. You generally don't use more then one screen to play RS, but it's nice to be able to read the forums\check email\watch TV etc. without having to shrink the RS window.

I really should have cleaned off the desk and grabbed a real camera instead of my iPhone, but I'm lazy :thumbsup: I see your dual 28\30" monitors and raise you 3. I know the third one's smaller, but I don't physically have room for a full sized third, so I have to be happy with this for now. And while your displays are arguably higher quality, my Crossfire 5870s and water-cooled i7 overclocked to 4.8Ghz with 12Gb of RAM (also overclocked), quad SSDs in RAID0, a few 2TB HDDs for data, and an awesome water cooling setup complete with 2 MCP655s and an 18-fan push\pull radiatior system will stomp your piddly Mac into the ground. Windows 7 Ultimate x64 for life, baby! Bonus points if you can guess what game I'm playing in the left monitor. Picture is terrible quality, but it's still distinguishable. Awesome game, by the way :) Now then, where were we? I know I don't really post any more, but what geek could pass up a chance to show off a nice little rig :twisted:

Bump - updated with details on finalized build.

.8C difference at the most, and the LC has a significantly higher flow rate - something I'm going to want with a 3 component setup: I'm not sure, I could go either way at this point. Advice is appreciated. I'm going up to higher CFM fans, the Zalman ZM-F3. I think a triple radiator can handle 1 GPU + CPU at reasonable temps, when I get SLI I'll put another one between the CPU and GPUs. I should have been more specific - I'm getting the biocyde Hydrx, not the coolant itself. Hence the 2.99 price :lol: Exactly what I plan to do. The 5870 x2 should follow shortly after those chips, if the 5870 is cheaper I'll go with 2 of them, but the cooling blocks for both would probably push the price far over what a 5870 x2 + cooling block would cost. I'll probably get a 5870 x2 when it comes out and buy & install the waterblock myself when one is released.

I'll get another triple fan radiator to put between the CPU and gpu if I go with SLI; the cabeling is really short thanks to the no case design, the fittings are high-flow, the CPU cooler is very low resitance, and the pump is high flow rate - it should be able to handle 2x gpu, CPU, and 2 tri radiators.