Will H

To be honest, I doubt this is going to happen. Even if it does, it is going to take a freaking long time. One problem here is that many dialogues involve the player's name and the voice actor cannot do them all. Games such as Guild Wars designed their game around this, none of the dialogues involve addressing the player by his/her account name, instead it is something like warrior/volunteer etc etc. Jagex would have to rewrite MANY lines to implement voice for everyone. Good point, but it's something that could be addressed gradually as the voice acting spreads over the map, should Jagex decide it would be a good addition to the game (which it is). It wouldn't be a big change in the dialogue and could easily be worked around. I'd still like it if they call me by my Fremennik name though, even if it would mean doing a few sentences a few times over or however they're going to do it. Only problem here is that it's in four languages now and has 25,000+ hours of gameplay in each language, it would be a colossal job to finish it.

Oh shut up. If we didn't have these regulations now, Jagex would have lost their credit card contracts and you wouldn't be playing the game at all, so drop it. You can't ban 'price manipulation' because it's nigh on impossible to define it. Instead, a good start would be to dissallow any advertisement for price manipulation clans in game or on the forums. That's definable and enforcable. Ultimately these things almost always only work when you have large amounts of people coordinated to do the same thing, which is why manipulation clans advertise. It also will reduce the victims of early item dumping and generally will sort out the spambot problem at the Grand Exchange. No, this won't fix it, but it's possibly the easiest and first step of many.

Yep. I don't think they're going to leave it like that though. I expect they're going to release floors for level 69 and above in the future, but for now, you have to get to about level 71 before there's no new content, and Dungeoneering* has far more variety in training than nearly any other single skill. *Chrome says Dungeoneering isn't a real word. For once, I think it's right.

Well, they are hosting a live Q&A for this skill. Maybe we can try to let them know what we do and don't like during this session (Wed 21st, 6pm BST) and actually know we're being acknowledged.

You say indecisive like its a bad thing. I would far rather have laws made that were well balanced, well thought through, and well adjusted to win the support of the majority of all the parties represented in the commons, than ones that can be rushed through with a three line whip. I do indeed say indecisive like it's a bad thing. I would rather have a rapid response law that deals with a given situation effectively than no law which allows a period of anarchy until the government finishes it's deals and bartering and comes up with a compromise which doesn't fix a problem. Take the methadrone fiasco. How many more lives would have been lost if the government didn't do anything for a few more weeks? If the rapidly put together law is obviously the right response to the problem, then it'll get through regardless. I can't think of a situation which would necessitate the use of a party's majority in order to quickly force through a bill. You can't? Natural disasters. Large scale strikes. When international relations with another country, or between two other countries, turn sour. Economic crashes. A new 'legal' drug hits the market. Plenty of these kinds of incidents happen every year, and you have to choose an action to deal with it one way or the other or face the consequences. That's what a strong government is all about. Do you think that the opposing party would vote down legislaton put forward by the party in power purely on the basis that it was put forward by the other party, not them? No. That doesn't happen, this isn't the USA. Should the situation call for it, and the proposed law be good enough, then the right decision will be made. And yeah, the mephedrone thing is hardly a good example. The media whipped itself up into hysteria, and they pushed through a completly unecessary piece of legislation. No, although it can and does happen as your example shows, but I am aware of situations where two or more different courses of action would both solve a problem but a compromise wouldn't. Clearly people are taking the mephedrone example in the wrong way, it was probably a bad example, so I'll use a slightly different one, recreational drugs in general. There's a big debate over whether the government should outright ban recreational drugs and heavily enforce it, or legalise drugs in your home and tax/regulate it. It's two respectable principles that don't work together. I know plenty of people who would argue either side here, but compromises would be a disaster. Banning it but barely enforcing it results in serious non-drug related crime problems, as we've seen in numerous countries all over the world.

You say indecisive like its a bad thing. I would far rather have laws made that were well balanced, well thought through, and well adjusted to win the support of the majority of all the parties represented in the commons, than ones that can be rushed through with a three line whip. I do indeed say indecisive like it's a bad thing. I would rather have a rapid response law that deals with a given situation effectively than no law which allows a period of anarchy until the government finishes it's deals and bartering and comes up with a compromise which doesn't fix a problem. Take the methadrone fiasco. How many more lives would have been lost if the government didn't do anything for a few more weeks? If the rapidly put together law is obviously the right response to the problem, then it'll get through regardless. I can't think of a situation which would necessitate the use of a party's majority in order to quickly force through a bill. You can't? Natural disasters. Large scale strikes. When international relations with another country, or between two other countries, turn sour. Economic crashes. A new 'legal' drug hits the market. Plenty of these kinds of incidents happen every year, and you have to choose an action to deal with it one way or the other or face the consequences. That's what a strong government is all about.

That won't change. That will always be the case, paper or not. I think we'll still have papers for now, but it wouldn't surprise me if it goes completely digital in the next 25 years.

You say indecisive like its a bad thing. I would far rather have laws made that were well balanced, well thought through, and well adjusted to win the support of the majority of all the parties represented in the commons, than ones that can be rushed through with a three line whip. I do indeed say indecisive like it's a bad thing. I would rather have a rapid response law that deals with a given situation effectively than no law which allows a period of anarchy until the government finishes it's deals and bartering and comes up with a compromise which doesn't fix a problem. Take the methadrone fiasco. How many more lives would have been lost if the government didn't do anything for a few more weeks?

To be honest, I'm not in favour of PR, which is probably the biggest reason why I wouldn't have voted Lib Dem in this general election (a couple of months too young, grr). I think it's far more important to have a system that reduces the likelyhood of a hung and therefore indecisive parliament, it at least minimises one of the main flaws of democracy. Smaller parties still actively campaign and do eventually gain seats, but I feel they should properly earn the right to speak for an entire constituency, instead of being voted in because of votes in an entirely different area of the country for an entirely different reason. I currently reside in Norwich North, which you might remember as being the constituency which had the really important by-election. It was called because our previous popular Labour MP was booted from the party officially due to his expenses record, and then he resigned with immediate effect. However, it was common knowledge that other MPs elsewhere that had far worse expenses records were barely punished by Labour and allowed to stand again. Instead, many here (including I) suspected that our MP was booted unfairly because of his somewhat independant and sometimes non-labour ideas, which was a large reason why he was so popular. As a result, there was a landslide towards a Conservative MP, and they won the by-election with ease. The fact is, many people don't want to vote for faceless parties. They want to vote for the person who will represent them.

We're all wondering the same thing. There clearly was supposed to be some way to obtain tokens other than through the 1 token per 10xp thing, but then they didn't do it. Why else would they assign levels to the rewards this way?

Actually, I think it makes sense that Dungeoneering has a cap of 120 and everything else has 99. Dungeoneering is a 'skill of skills', it's practically the final achievement in terms of training skills, so it makes sense that it goes a little bit a lot further. If you make other skills that are so much more of a grind have a cap at 120, Runescape has slipped much further towards the status of grindfest than it already has. I'd rather there was more content for more variety (but not faster) in terms of training methods than simply giving another ridiculously boring goal.

Yeah, that's the downside. Remember to keep hold of your adamant defender if you make it to rune, or go get another one, but in all honesty I wouldn't have the willpower to get another rune one which serves the same purpose as an adamant one, save one measly bank space.

I am f2p... (I just fixed status in control panel) I'm getting doors that need 94 str, 104 fm ect. which is lowering my bonus room % and base xp Thats not anything to do with complexity. Jagex jsut decided it was a good idea that bonus rooms can require w/e the hell they like regardless of if neone on the team can access it. Cause of course its not a pointless waste of resources to generate a room that you alreayd know no-one can get into or benefit from. It's not really a waste of resources. At a guess, the only thing about the dungeon that's generated at first is the overall map, doors with locks, the location of the boss, and the general location of the keys. That's very small and easy to process. The finer details of the rooms (resource type, resource tier, resource location, monster type, monster tier, skill/unlocked doors, the boss type, room layout), which still isn't that information heavy, would be generated individually when you 'reveal' a room, so rooms you don't access are only generated to the stage of a few bytes of information. It's the different combinations of those variables that give you such a huge variety. You'd be surprised how efficiently it's done. Oh, and lowering the complexity isn't a good idea unless you want to catch up to a friend at a higher (as in number) floor so you can team up or you are still learning the basics, the xp penalty isn't worth it.

You'll never encounter a door which is required to be opened which you can't do. However, higher levels in the right skill reduces the chance of you taking damage. On the other hand, doors to bonus rooms do not have to be accessible to any player in the dungeon. It means that if you have higher levels in any skill apart from Dungeoneering itself (I get the feeling this might change in the future), you are less likely to come across a door that you can't do. Of course, if you're hit by a level 100+ door, you're going to need level about level 95+ in that skill as well as a boosting potion, but they're always theoretically passable. It's an incentive, like the many other incentives in the game.

Aww that's dumb :/ can i go back to my previous level at least? You're right. It's really dumb. I'm not gonna continue training it until Jagex fixes it. It's being fixed as we speak. Consider a 2 man party.

My only gripe is that it's too horizontally thin, and I'm only using monitors with a standard aspect ratio, I can imagine there's a lot of wasted space for those using widescreen aspect ratios. Other than that, it's not as different as people are making it out to be. Yes, the scroll down bar is now at the top, and the news and features/articles columns have been swapped around, but that's it. Oh, and check out this page, there's a ranger as well: http://www.runescape.com/splash.ws

They did make the NPC's moderately based on the combat triangle, or at least more-so than the way rs-world NPC's are. This isn't to say you *have* to follow the combat triangle in every instance though. It just makes it much easier. Like always, melee can be pumped up the majority of the time to take on most combat challenges effectively. Yes, but it doesn't always work. Sometimes you can come up against a Forgotton Warrior with full Gorgonite or above, and it's downright impossible unless you make some runes and mage. Luckily, this isn't too difficult if you've already made a Fire Staff for alching. NPC mages always fail because of protect from magic stops their binds, which I believe is a flaw in the game. I've found that attack styles are very important as well. On some things you simply can't use slash. Also, I'd like to see some of the Barbarian skills put in Dungeoneering, since this seems perfect for it. Having a bow at hand is far more useful than a tinderbox, so why not let us light fires with it?

I agree, I think opening the level caps is the key first step in being able to introduce new higher level content into the game. New metals beyond rune possible to be mined, higher hp allowing for more powerful weapons, new potions etc etc etc. Not to mention with the exception of rewards and item binding dungeoneering content stops at 69, that leave a huge area to add to and improve it. I'd expect to see a new release associated with dungeoneering withing the next few weeks-couple months. I reckon having ways to change the properties of existing armour and weapons would have more depth than simply inventing more metals and tacking it on to the higher levels. This could include the ones that aren't player made as well. Mmm, I like where this is going.

So long as nothing extreme happens, it's either going to be a hung parliament or a really close Conservative majority, so the Lib Dems can really make a mark here. Clegg won the Leaders' Debate, with 'Captain Dave' Cameron in 2nd, but I get the feeling that the Lib Dems have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Vince Cable (Lib Dem) did very well in the Chancellor's Debate, with George Osborne (Con) in 2nd as well. This time the Lib Dems might end up as the kingmakers if they do well in more of the Debates, but they're not the kings quite yet.

33 Dungeoneering now, and the rate of levelling up is pretty constant, which seems unusual for a skill. Normally the time between levels goes up exponentially, but here I'm getting more or less a level a dungeon, and although the creatures I'm facing are changing, it's not getting difficult yet.

Sounds like a coin, reflecting the fact that the coin has no inherent value but is traded as if it does.

Fixed already, quit yer [bleep]in. Alright, it's fixed now. Was a bit worried.

Runescape r broke. I can only go into unsigned Java on 'Safe Mode' now. Guess it's a good time to play [censored by Jagex].

Just... no. You'll find that Dungeoneering changes as you level up in it.

Thanks for the tip. I did a few solo raids today and found that I had little money, full Argonite melee armour and had to go against Astea Frostweb. She barrages and moves around, and can only really be beaten by range if you solo. Using the high alch, I managed to scrape some half-decent ranged armour and just managed to survive her with two web snippers left, so thanks!