qeltar

Good grief.

To hell with the "rare market". The bloody things should have been removed from the game years ago; Jagex didn't to be nice to those who owned them already, but they sure as hell shouldn't make ANY decisions about gameplay based on them. As with any other changes related to expensive items, the issue comes down to intent. Did Jagex really mean to inflate the value of onyx items by 5 times, 10 times or more? Then the current situation is intentional, and the fury and onyx (i) are meant to be expensive items. If they didn't, and it was just a side effect of changes to the Tzhaar shops, then eventually they will revise the tokkul price. They said last year that they'd review the situation and hopefully that will happen soon. One thing that would help at least a bit is making tokkul tradeable. There are thousands of players with "partial onyxes" rotting in their banks because they can't buy anything they need with them, and they can't trade them.

Uncut gems and rings, sapphire through diamond, enchanted and unenchanted. 30 I usually get 5-10 items per pouch, but it may depend on what you're doing. With current gem prices it's worth having one out any time you aren't using something more specific to your current task, though if you only have a few minutes don't expect much.

I think some things shouldn't have a price. Obviously others feel differently, but the issue here for me is not based on worrying about a slippery slope, but based on principle. What Jagex is doing to fan sites here is wrong, and the company won't change its stance unless the bigger sites take a stand. If you're serious about this, I might just take you up on it. Concern about "approvals" and censorship on controversial topics is one of the reasons I stopped writing for the Times.

You worked with me, you can confirm i wouldn't stand for BS. C'mon Das -- this is already BS. You have a company that makes millions a year trying to tell small fansites who are trying to earn enough to cover their costs and/or justify their existence that they need to suppress competitive ads? It would be one thing if Jagex was paying these sites -- exclusivity usually comes at a premium. And does anyone here really think Jagex is being substantially harmed by the odd ad for another game on a fansite? As for independence, an argument could be made that Jagex already influences the content of the site, at least when it comes to anything controversial. The folks who run Tip.it need to make the decision they feel is best for the site, but everything has a cost, and it's not always monetary (though how you make money off AdSense without clicks is a mystery to me as well).

Thanks again, zotto, for being a voice of reason (and experience). FWIW, I did also compare the ferocious ring in one of my tests -- the dark beasts. The difference there was VERY noticeable and quite unambiguous: 13% faster than the other rings. This isn't enough data to be conclusive (or to publish) but it was a really obvious difference.

A nearly full crystal bow is a pretty decent weapon, though still probably not as good as crossbow bolts of equivalent cost. A nearly empty crystal bow is a pretty awful weapon. Like nearly everything in ranging except for bolts, it needs an upgrade.

I believe the several hundred monsters killed should be enough to show that the berserker ring has a benefit over the warrior ring if it had one. That was what I was testing here: is the berserker ring worth 10x as much as the warrior ring? If after that many hours the data shows no benefit, there probably isn't one.

Um, that makes absolutely no sense. Try actually READING the report you keep criticizing. I've wasted enough time on you; your posts are little more than flaming and trolling. Bye.

Actually, it seems that what's really easy is to snipe from the peanut gallery while providing nothing of any substance to contradict the data presented. That's okay though -- it doesn't change anything.

Of course you do. :rolleyes:

Let me know when *you've* done a comparable test, sport. I drew no false conclusion. The berserker ring does not provide a statistically significant benefit over the warrior ring under most combat conditions, as the test shows pretty clearly. It's a vastly overpriced and overrated item.

The host I have used since 1997 is pair Networks (pair.com). I have no idea if they provide precisely what you need, or how they compare to other services in terms of price. But they've been around a while (obviously) and they're good folks. I strongly advise against running your own host, by the way. You can't duplicate the facilities and expertise that a proper web host brings to the table, at least not without spending a fortune.

I wasn't being serious. But it frustrates *me* that I spend hours and hours of time already providing useful free reports, and some people not only don't appreciate it, they feel fine making demands on my time. Do you know how long it would take to do what he suggested? We're talking about laboriously writing down every damage splat from killing hundreds of monsters. That's pretty ridiculous, and it wouldn't eliminate human error from the equation anyway.

That's not obvious at all. Not unless someone here is volunteering to pay me by the hour to do it.

I'm talking about roughly 10 years ago. I'm not sure if you know any of this or not. If you do, don't take offense. If you don't, it may help. There are two different aspects of networking performance that you need to consider: bandwidth and latency. Bandwidth is raw throughput (roughly speaking) while latency is response time (usually called ping time, as you mentioned before). The thing is: some Internet connectivity is good in both areas, some in only one, and some in neither. In particular, satellite is moderate to high bandwidth (depending on the service) but very low latency. You *cannot* have good ping times with satellite because it takes time to bounce the signal up and down. Cable and proper DSL and other similar services have both good bandwidth and latency. Dial-up usually has low bandwidth but pretty good latency -- not great, but not horrible. For playing games like RuneScape, dial-up is probably your best bet. No, you're not going to solo the CB or be an uber-PKer with it, but you should be able to do 95% of the game without too much trouble. As for the conclusions you're drawing about the US, I think you need to bear in mind that there is nothing new here: urban, populated areas always get new technologies first, and then they trickle down to rural areas. There are parts of the US that only got electrical service a couple of decades ago.. and some areas that still don't have it. There are places around here where you still can't get basic voice cell service. It has nothing to do with the state of the country and everything to do with the cost of providing the service.

You may not remember the days of having to pay by the minute for cell phone connectivity. It was something like 20 cents a minute, and believe me, that adds up fast. I don't understand why you won't specify what the company is, as that could let people help you, which would be more satisfying than merely ranting. If you won't, then can you at least tell us what technology it is? Dialup? Satellite? DSL? WWAN? What are you using that is shutting you down? What is the bandwidth limit?

Apparently Morionic wants God Himself to descend and perform gameplay tests for him. That's the only way to ensure there is no human error in the results. ;) And yes, the data is inconsistent. But remember that my conclusion is not that the warrior ring is clearly better than the berserker ring, only that it may be better. The real, primary conclusion is that the berserker ring is not nearly as good as people think it is. Correct. I don't believe there is any statistically significant data in this test to prove that the warrior ring provides a clear advantage. It's just that, with the data available, it is more likely that the warrior ring provides a higher benefit than the berserker ring, than the other way around. And given that one costs 1/10th of what the other does, *that* is noteworthy. Strikers have very low defence against all melee attack forms that I've tried. If you look at report #1, you'll see roughly 50% more XP/hr with them than abyssals: about 90 k/hr as opposed to 60 k/hr. The results are consistent with this.

What specifically is the service you are using, the one with the issues you are complaining about? That would be a prerequisite to any attempt to assist you. If it makes you feel any better, I spent three years living in a remote area off the grid with 4800 baud analog cellular phone as my only Internet service. I had to pay by the minute for this and occasionally had monthly bills exceeding $300. And I was running websites for a living. When we got early satellite service, it felt like luxury. ;)

I'm guessing you live in a rural area and are using something like satellite-based Internet? If not, where are you (roughly) and what are you using? One of the major reasons why the US lags in terms of overall high-speed connectivity is geography, not politics. Also, many developing countries have an advantage because they are installing new infrastructure during modern times, rather than having to retrofit existing services.

So any time someone does a test and draws a conclusion from the results, this means that it happened because they wanted that to be the outcome? There's some flawed reasoning going on around here alright, but it ain't mine! You keep saying my methods are "flawed" but can't explain what the flaws are. And you certainly have no data to contradict mine. So maybe the problem isn't that I have a preconception against strength bonuses, but that you have a preconception *in favor* of them and just want an excuse to reject anything that contradicts it.

I tested both as well. The goal here is to get big hits, but I observed that each of the hits made by the claws has the potential to make the mole dig (which is what you want to avoid). This also seemed to waste the additional damage done by the claw spec. You seem to be suggesting that even if the mole digs after the first of the four splats, it takes all of the damage. If that's the case, then claws could very well be useful there. This should be testable.

This should give you some ideas for combat at your level. I don't think there's much there that would pose a serious risk to you even on a laggy connection. There are plenty of skilling options as well.

Thanks zotto, appreciate it. There's no reason to believe that any variations in my reflexes would affect combat with one ring more than another. This was a comparative test, not an absolute measurement. There's no evidence nor any logical reason to believe that which ring I was wearing would have any impact on my reflexes. Yes, that's called a conclusion based on the evidence. :rolleyes: How could it? Do you think my brainwaves have power over space and time? Or are you accusing me of lying (with no evidence whatsoever, I might add)?

Most of the better *consistent* moneymakers are not sensitive to lag and not risky. You can do pretty much anything that is non-combat or where you use prayer or the monster is weak; it really depends most on what interests you.