compfreak847

Some people seem to be missing my point. The cheapest Cable connection here in the USA is at least 40$; she's not paying $50 for her health, she's paying it because there's really not much else available. There's nothing in the way of a few-dollars-a-month plan for those who want to check email every now and then without the hassle and frustration of dial up - which STILL costs $20 a month and is rapidly disappearing.

Don't blame me, blame the mods. I don't have the power to do a single thing about it, and they've decided that ending a discussion simply because one user requests it isn't reasonable. Besides, I'm friends with hemen, he hasn't been in the forums lately but I could ask him to remove it in game if it was causing a problem. But it's not, the mods have made their policy clear, and I'm simply restating it. Live with it or PM a admin if you disagree and want a policy change. Be forewarned, it could take months to go through.

Only for rants. I trust TIF enough, any website this well established can't be a scam. Besides, I'd fight them to the finish to get the charges reversed, so I'm not too worried. You trust your number to various sales sites around the web that are less traveled then TIF ;)

I'm a part of them. Well, unofficially. Either way, they'll never get me :twisted: :twisted:

And the reason would be? Hemen edited it in on the second page before discussion potential was realized; as stated in viewtopic.php?f=90&t=785476, forum pages are not locked upon request alone. As long as the topic is reasonably spam free and on topic (as this thread has gone thus far), it will stay open.

That's a good idea. It simply couldn't be tiered based on usage alone. Let me give an example: Currently the company is paid 100$ for 1,000,001,000,000 bytes of data usage. If we break it down, the family should pay >99.99999999$ and the grandma <.00000001$

Basically, this is just something I wanted to get OTs opinion on (and possibly get into a few debates, but I don't have many strong opinions on this subject so I probably won't :P ): What do you think of internet charges based (at least somewhat) upon usage? Let me give two examples, both of real-life people I know: #1 is The Grandma. #2 is The Big Household #1 is an elderly woman, who uses the internet for nothing more then logging onto her gmail once a week and responding to 1-2 messages. Occasionally the kids come over and check the weather on her computer. Her monthly internet usage rarely exceeds 10 MB, and frequently remains below 1-2 MB. However, she has plenty of money, and she doesn't like waiting or having to tie up the phone line, so she pays $50 a month to get a reasonably fast cable connection from a major provider in her area. #2 is a large household. There 4 children of various ages, 3 of whom are teenagers, and two adults. They all are very into torrenting and video\TV show download (Some legal, some not). They frequently watch a move every day or two apiece, and pull as much as 1 TB a month in data, thanks in no small amount to a strong belief in generous seeding - they frequently leave BT running all night, seeding at full speed. Now, they are a family of modest means, but they want a connection fast enough to get the videos they want without to much wait. So they also pay $50 a month for a good plan that gives them a fast connection from a major ISP. Now, here's a summary of the usaage for one particularly varied month: #1: 1,000,000 bytes of data #2: 1,000,000,000,000 bytes of data Yes, #2 is pulling 1,000,000 times the data, at 1,000,000 times the infrastructure cost to the ISP. What do they both pay? $50 per month. These are both examples of people that live in my area. Now my question is, do you think that is right? If you were paying for, say, water utilities at a flat monthly rate and you were charged the same amount as a neighbor who used one million times as much water, would you consider it fair? I feel there should be some sort of system in place to allow for this, but I'd like to get opinions on this from OT. Here's a post I found interesting on slashdot discussing how this is similar and not similar to utilities (in this case water) "Even where there is potentially plenty of water, drinkable water is NOT an unlimited resource. And it's not 'there' if you don't use it. Water evaporates and leaks. But the reality is that water, like bandwidth, is a finite resource. It costs to find water, transport and store it, make it drinkable, and then dispose of it. If you use more, it gets scarcer. Bandwidth is also finite. It costs money to provision for it, actually maintain it, solve problems. Some of you may remember when you were responsible for the Internet link at work - when the DDS2 circuit didn't cut it any more, the ISDN line was maxed out (thank God!) and then the T-1 wasn't enough, and 4 T-1s bonded couldn't handle it. With every increase in bandwidth came more costs, for a new or more DSU/CSU, new router, firewall. You used an external mail server to filter the spam, saving 90% of your POP/SMTP traffic. You blocked WebShots, and your CEO drove you c-r-a-z-y with the constantly-updating cnnmoney.com Now it's Flash that eats bandwidth, and you want to block YouTube, Facebook, and Hulu to keep from cranking up another link just to satisfy non-business browsing. I understand the cable cos dilemma - Only a few users can hammer bandwidth, and affect everyone. The cost is spread, but not enough."

But it's not something every player does, and they certainly shouldn't be blamed for not doing it. Yep, I always do that in minigames. I try to hang back and figure out what they are doing by watching them so I can join in in a few games, but if I'm yelled at I'll confess I don't really know what I'm doing and ask for help. It's the least intrusive way. I did the same thing learning team bandos GWD.

No, no... Do argue them, but don't do as everyone else has done and say "your methods are [developmentally delayed]ed". Give me numbers proving it, just as I have done for my argument.

My point is that what does watching youtube videos have to do with this rant? It's not as if all players are instructed to do so in RS, I just chose that based on previous experience. I quote: "They just sit around, not calling, or doing anything and when everyone starts shouting at him, he leaves or asks what to do."

Except we aren't arguing opinions, we're arguing facts. I'm sorry, but I see only one possible way that post could be interpreted. Either your just copping out, or your intended response was completely different then what you wrote. At any rate, my response addresses an issue you've raised many different times, so I'd appreciate a counter-argument to it :P

Except that testing has proven it ups rare drops by roughly 10-12%. Jagex isn't teh liars after all.

I call 1k to respond to a rants thread, 4k+ to start one. Also, require 18+ age verification (credit card would be easiest).

Which doesn't relate in any way to these in-game people. Self teaching is going to take quite a few games to figure out just what to do. Much faster to ask a pro and have them give you a 1 minute run down on what to do.

Good thing they decided that too and changed it, no? That being said, basing a debate upon something that you both agree upon isn't generally a good idea. Much as I hate to break it to you, a debate usually takes place between people of differing opinions. I'm talking about the pro stakers with the methods and tactics to win a round. Otherwise you end up with two people with equal stats fighting each other and losing and winning half the time, commending no profit whatsoever. Which it would be anyway. To win duels often enough to make a good profit, it requires specialized tasks and a highly skilled and patient player - someone who certainly isn't going to be satisfied with 250k\h, and it would STILL allow RWT. Transferring 8m+ in one night when a player is gone is far to easy to RWT - that's 40-50 USD worth of gold, certainly less then most players purchase at one time!

The goal isn't prevention by impossibility, it's elimination via hassle and time required. Yes, one could theoretically transfer gold using the trade limit, but it's too much hassle - there's easier ways for RWTers to make money.

Crossbow animation makes it far too delayed. Magic spells work great at low levels as a surprise high hit when ranging.

I was a clueless chump wandering around asking what to do. I ended up leaving after the first game, as it was obvious people didn't like that, and went to youtube to watch video guides until I got the hang of it. Oh, so asking what to do isn't learning? How are they supposed to know to call and what to say if no one's going to tell them? The instruction book is laughably inadequate, it in no way prepares you for the inventory or setup, and doesn't detail any sort of tactics.

Disagreeing with each of your points wasn't good enough? How are you supposed to have a debate when you think your opponent agrees with you? Yeah, I don't recall any melee stakers either, and as mentioned before, anything coming anywhere close to the very high rates these stakers can commend would be laughably open to RWT.

Do you really have that hard of a time reading my posts? I've already stated, quite a few times, that people like you and miner mean posting a simple XP table will lead to flamers who didn't bother to read my thread. If you've read it, you have no problem with my rates, so don't bother responding unless you do so.

Sorry you took it the wrong way. Point being? They have to wait after clicking the login button, wait to buy members, and even leveling to 30-40 combat takes longer then overnight. Those who simply can't wait a few hours to be rich aren't playing this game in the first place. See above. It wasn't as if before they submitted a request to a RWTer and recieved their gold 30 seconds later. Take a look on any of the old RWT websites, middleman negotiations could take days. Oh, so now I'm wrong because people disagree with me? How so? If it's not enough money for someone who can only make 250k\h, how is it going to be enough for a high level dueler who spent thousands of hours perfecting methods (your example) and spends 200-300k per fight in runes alone? Old time stakers blew through millions of GP of runes in an hour, anything under 1m won an hour would be a huge loss for them.

Like what? It would have to be enough to fine people several million per usage, and I don't really think that's going to help him bank his fire battlestaffs. Not that it matters, we already have something to do that for us :-# See above, the required fees would be roughly 5,000% of the items price to balance it for high level players. You really think your going to use that on a day to day basis?

I don't know, you tell me? The question of why has nothing to do with the fact that it would be happening. My personal guess is because the risk of banning is ridiculously low. Pray tell, what does it stop you doing that 'ruins' RS, and how would that be remedied if RS was forced to close from RWT?

When did I ever say that? What on earth does programming have to do with double clicking an EXE file? Key difference: They don't have to be playing. They can do it during a time when they quit, and 24m for a day of not playing isn't bad - hell, they could earn 15m+ overnight\through school. No, I don't. They didn't know how many people would simply macro to RWT; they had to kill it effectively the first time with strong measures, then relax them as they saw fit. There really wasn't any further reason that 6k or even 10k would fix, so it's not as if 3k instantly killed it.

No worries, it's quite simple to program an undetectable autoer that simply duels every 15 minutes. Very hard to detect because of its simplicity. See above. Not really. Even 12k\h would be enough for 300k a day transfers; if someone didn't play for a week, they could easily transfer several million. However, Jagex decided they didn't need it that strict after it appeared no one would try and do that, and drastically lifted them. That being said, why do we need anything over 60k? I really can't think of legitimate purposes that even 250k would solve.