Ravenkana

Doesn't. They'll just move up to 76king.

Best: Castle Wars or Stealing Creation Worst: Burthorpe Game room or Rat Pits

Wrong, frickin', forum. WoW has absolutely nothing to do with Runescape, and it makes you appear childish to complain about it on a forum for Runescape in game rants. If it wasn't, I'd be ranting about the floating briefcase bug in TF2. I very much enjoy WoW. Better customer support, combat requires strategy and some intelligence, the censor is far less invasive, you're more likely to play with others, I don't worry about bugs destroying all that I've worked so hard for, and having only two primary skills allows the price of goods to remain somewhat high because not everyone is producing them. And you complain about how combat centric WoW is. Well, here's news for you buddy: so is Runescape. Most everything that every skill produces somehow leads back to the woefully archaic combat system. You may enjoy skilling, but the majority of the stuff you produce, unless it's obsolete, will be used in combat.

Look in the above pictures. It shows the goblins wielding crossbows, dwarves with axes, and elves with staves. But they all attack in melee range which devolves the whole system into racial advantages instead of the combat triangle. And why do Gobbos have crossbows anyway?

I'm not going to argue over most of your points as they are well-founded however, the weapon triangle is the same. Dwarfs use melee, elves magic, and goblins range. i have never once seen a elf use mage or a goblin use range ingame For that matter, I've yet to see a single soldier move independently of the group or do anything but jog in place while inexplicably moving over the field via an invisible device, I'm assuming a disk of transferring.

I am most dissatisfied. True, I've but played the tutorial and one game of conflict, but the annoyances are myriad. First, the controls. Having to use the arrow keys is a pain in the arsenal. Only being able to select a single squad even more so. Zoom is slow and laggy as well. Next, the game itself. Why the hell does it take so long for my squads to load? Shouldn't it instantaneous instead of several seconds? By this I mean that when I go over the map, any squads in the area take several seconds to load greatly reducing efficiency. Also, why the new combat triangle? Why not just have the old system of mage, range, and melee? Additionally, the whole twenty people required to start a game is ludicrous- ten or so is much more reasonable. As it is, it just boosts waiting time. Another issue I have is calling this a strategy game- MA is to strategy what a McDonalds hamburger is to fine dining, only people who are starved will ever make a connection between the twain. And loragically, this game makes little sense. Sure, the whole "make an honorable living" sounds good on paper, but it breaks down in practice- who wants the chance to be killed for soldier's wages without the cause? It would have made far more sense simply to have them be mercenaries whom people hire for various tasks that you lead. And elves? Why? This game, with a tele of ten, is for everyone so why have elves in it at all? You need to have at least started Regecide or done Making History to get your first glimpse of one. Now we're expected to believe that elves have left Isfador to fight? I haven't even touched on the sickening number of issues, bugs, and glitches on release... For a game in development well over a year this is a complete and utter train wreck. On fire. Containing copious amounts of dynamite, orphans, and cute critters.

Wtf? there's a cat in your bottom left clue pic. Either clues have been changed, or you put that in to show how easy it is to photo shop a good clue reward Or these could have been done over months, maybe even years and are just the cream of the crop.

The real question is how you can enjoy the Agility Arena, AKA Hell's boot camp? For me it's a little of both, but usually leaning more heavily on enjoyment.

Defence in Runescape is like armor in DnD- it affects the chances of the attacker to hit the defender. Defencel level is natural armor which actual armor, barring the Elysian and the Divine shields, adds on. Attack increases the chance of hit, like in DnD as well. Strength is a modifier on the damage you do. Most other MMORPGS have a dodge AND a defence percentage. WoW's agility raises both armor and the percentage of dodge ever so slightly. Armor further increases armor, reducing the PERCENTAGE of damage dealt. No one can ever have 100%, barring some sort of buff, as increased armor has decreasing returns. Strength increases max hit, while another stat increases chance to hit, can't remember it at the mo. Most MMORPGS also have a max and min hit- unless you dodge an attack. This system is far less random and, in my opinion, much better. The only con is that it is far to complex for mere mortals to calculate all the time, which is why DnD uses the more random system of dice. Runescape can, and should, do better.

Scarier sight: You're in a multi area and they're teaming.

Couldn't you use a Games Necklace and tele to the ex-bounty volcano saving 400 gp per item?

Front page of Runescape.com?

Agreed. The name is familiar but I don't really get the import.

Try setting a minimum wage for a huge population? I'm pretty sure you are using extreme selective perception. What is your data? How do you know all bums in NYC eat a meal every day? Or are you just inferring that? I'd like to know where you backing is for what you are saying. I don't want to be rude, but it seems to me you are just pulling stuff out of thin air to support you. Ok, yes, I'm not citing sources but, to be fair, neither are you. A lot of what I'm saying comes from what I'd like to call personal experience. I live in Texas, a border state. I have friends, some of which have parents who are illegals. Others are second generation or third. But they're not starving. Their parents have minimal skills, but still manage to easily feed their families with hard work. Heck, my grandad was raised as a single child, back in the 20s due to a work related accident. I.E. he had nothing. He died a multi millionaire, including, of course, property and stocks. My point? These are people I know or knew who had little or nothing, and some of which who are still lower class, who not only manage to feed themselves, but thrive and are steadily getting better. Does China have that? Edit: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=121964 There's a bit of proof. In a study conducted, it was found that the average monthly income of panhandlers, i.e. beggars, was 300$ strictly from begging, about 650$ with other sources. Going with the former number, that's 10$ a day in your average month, a little more or less. Let's take half of that and say it goes to other necessities/amenities. Surely, 5$ should be adequate for at least a single meal- heck, you could just buy four of whatever from the McDonald's Dollar Menu with tax. You could buy forty or so packages of instant ramen. True, this is not very nutritious sustenance, but the point here is that they are getting the single meal a day I attested they could.

I would love it, but it would probably be a sharp double edged sword. They already have problems differentiating macroers from people using mousekeys.

True. Very true. A large population drop in mainland China WOULD ensure that the survivors are far, far wealthier. But, if we let emotion, morals, and ethics enter in it becomes... abominable. Because people, regardless of who or where are more than just numbers. why don't they do what normal poor people do then and steal food, that imo is not nearly as bad as goldfarming. because with goldfarming you affect a lot more people around the world and the profit is also not given completely to the workers. they are both illegal and one is technically less bad so to speak, so i'm all for those workers stealing food to support themselves if they are that hungry. First, Spriroff90, who do not let people eat? Do you know how many percent of people can not eat in China? China will be No2 total GDP in the world this year, only difference is they may not have as good and plenty food as we have. People will go hungragy there, that is your assumption. Second, Great_one, please have have a visit to China and see what is going on there. Do not imagine something you do not know at all. I was there and things are so much different than what I was told from media and books. China is changing, very fast, all the time. People need to update their picture of China often. What media and what books? If I cited sources about the American Civil War from a book titled "Stopping the Confederacy: Halting a Great Evil" I'd get laughed off this forum. Few, very few, sources are completely unbiased. And, true, China is changing, and fast. But are they changing their ethics? Giving the citizens more rights? Is their population decreasing? And, if so, fast enough to make the changes useful? A large GDP means nothing if the populace is several magnitudes larger. [/hide] Few, very few, sources are completely unbiased. Then what? I have been to China and you did not. Been there, shmeen there. In what capacity? As a tourist? Government agent? Spy? Missionary? The latter three are far more credible, actually interacting with the government or populace. And, true, China is changing, and fast. But are they changing their ethics? What ethics? There is no universal one. There are religions and others. Something you think right does not need to be correct from others. Ethics are universal. Name one, just one, civilization that prizes dishonor over honor. That prizes evil over good. Giving the citizens more rights? If compare it with 30 years ago or even 10 years ago, then they do have more. They are getting better. This is called more. But to they have adequate rights? Do they vote for their ruler? Are they allowed to go where ever, within reason, they want at any reasonable time? Are they allowed a fair trial by a jury of their peers? Freedom of speech? Is their population decreasing? Do you have the knowledge of population? Let me tell you. If their peak birth rate is at 1970s ( might be 1960s ), those people need to be old enough to die before the total population number to go down. Plus people are living longer than before, this will also be a big factor. They need another 20-50 years ( not sure, but not now ) to get the population number down. It is not that you announce one child policy then the population will go down immediately. And, if so, fast enough to make the changes useful? Like atomic power, it has both sides. You and me can not give a judge of the changes of China to the whole world. It might be bad for someone, and good for others. From economcs point of view, China is doing good things to the world to help us from the finance crisis now. If they use the money on weapons while not to the people, then it is a bad thing. From an ethical, political, and religious point of view, they're doing terribly. Sure, economically they're well off, in a hive mind sort of way, but so was the Roman Catholic church in the 1500s. Furthermore, mechanization is not very useful when manual labor is so much cheaper. That was what I meant. A large GDP means nothing if the populace is several magnitudes larger. It does mean less people go hungray. Every country has rich and poor. The most important thing is to reduce the difference between the rich and poor. Even you are rich, if the gap is too big, still a lot of people will go hungry. I have not check over the last 10 years, who it doing better. Britain. America. Japan. France. They all do it better. Why? Well, even bums in New York City can, at the very least, scrape together at least one meal a day in between charity and state sponsored programs. Furthermore, these nations all have a healthily large middle class.

They are banned... but they make a new account five minutes later. Armed robbery is up to stores and banks to police, not entire nations. Seems... asinine.

True. Very true. A large population drop in mainland China WOULD ensure that the survivors are far, far wealthier. But, if we let emotion, morals, and ethics enter in it becomes... abominable. Because people, regardless of who or where are more than just numbers. why don't they do what normal poor people do then and steal food, that imo is not nearly as bad as goldfarming. because with goldfarming you affect a lot more people around the world and the profit is also not given completely to the workers. they are both illegal and one is technically less bad so to speak, so i'm all for those workers stealing food to support themselves if they are that hungry. First, Spriroff90, who do not let people eat? Do you know how many percent of people can not eat in China? China will be No2 total GDP in the world this year, only difference is they may not have as good and plenty food as we have. People will go hungragy there, that is your assumption. Second, Great_one, please have have a visit to China and see what is going on there. Do not imagine something you do not know at all. I was there and things are so much different than what I was told from media and books. China is changing, very fast, all the time. People need to update their picture of China often. What media and what books? If I cited sources about the American Civil War from a book titled "Stopping the Confederacy: Halting a Great Evil" I'd get laughed off this forum. Few, very few, sources are completely unbiased. And, true, China is changing, and fast. But are they changing their ethics? Giving the citizens more rights? Is their population decreasing? And, if so, fast enough to make the changes useful? A large GDP means nothing if the populace is several magnitudes larger.

Also when you're citizens have limited rights...

Thanks for the perspective. But you must admit that neither Russia or China are Communist nations- the USSR failed and China adapted to a more free market. And you do gloss over the fact that China restricts the freedoms of its citizens far more than the classic free nations, as shown by the way they restrict internet usage, news, and family size. Furthermore, cities are not all of China. Of course they're going to look nice and free- after all, they do support tourism. Places where tourists do not go are probably far, far worse. Admittedly, you could say the exact same thing of the U.S., but the difference is the government doesn't force tourists to only visit certain places.

have you watched the documentary "peoples republic of socialism"? because if you have you would understand what im talking about. and i watched that video, tell me what i made up that that goes against? I can't watch the video now, as I'm at work and youtube is blocked, however the head of my department at my university(who is from China) always talks about how the US has to compete with the Chinese in terms of becoming a technological power. I've never been over there myself, but he makes it seem like they have more advanced technology then we do. (btw, I'm going to trust a credible primary sources as opposed to some documentary) goodluck finding it on youtube meaning it is a documentary by Ted Koppel and is actually available for purchase and was featured on the discovery channel. It is the first look at the modern China, the first American documentary that was allowed by the government to be shot there. And i'm talking about the general population btw, do you think all of those over a billion ppl have office jobs? But it is your choice to trust a worldly accredited source or your head of department . I meant the didyouknow video. And trust me, I'm sure I could find the documenatary on the net if I wanted to, and btw just because someone made a video about it, doesn't make it legit. And I never said they all have office jobs, I just implied that it's not a third world country, which is how this thread portrays it. True, it's not a third world country. But it is a dictatorship which, furthermore, keeps most of the money in only the ruling class- even if the nation itself is wealthy, the majority are impoverished with a standard of living much, much lower than free nations.

Most of them probably didn't like it... Good move IMO. It wasn't exactly playing video games. It was sitting there clicking to cut a tree for hours straight, and they probably got paid around 25 cents on the hour, or whatever that converts into. And anyways, there is a job where you get paid to play video games, it's called a video game tester, and it actually has semi-decent pay :P But it sucks like a vampire in a blood bank.

This is the only part that isn't true. Special items should be worth getting. Let's take Infinity as a prime example. It is no longer worthwhile to exchange points for most MTA items due to their low prices. And I can say with certainty that if things had gone on as they were, MTA items would have never become like this naturally, because the demand wouldn't have fallen so far under the supply. As it was before, PvP was providing a much easier outlet of unique items than obtaining the items from their original source, therefore ruining some or most of the play values of many different game contents. im pretty sure that in the infinity robes/mage book/master wand's case, that the mage training arena bot that was floating around for a few months made a muck of the infinity/w/e prices, pvp just added a bit more supply to it. What about the Dragon Full Helm and Dragon Fire Shield? The drop tables completely ruined Mithril Dragons and cut deeply into visage hunters.

He's seriously doing that? I had no idea something that asinine was even in the works! Ha, say hello to rises in the cost of living and goodbye to competitive business, folks! Yay America will be back to normal......! If by normal, you mean giving the shaft to the world market which America is a part of. In a global economy, everyone wins because EVERYTHING CAN BE DONE CHEAPER.

Erm... I do refer to lower levels as lad, but not in a derogatory respect. Sort of in an affectionate, "I'm-givin'-ya-good-advice-,-laddie-me-buck-and-ye-best-be-takin'-notice-ya-ken-?" sense. Just wanted to point that out. But I do think that you're kinda right. The way Jagex has been selling Runescape, and to the crowd they sell it to, tends towards pre-teens and younger- the I-want-it-nows and Don'ttellmeanythingasauorouses.