qeltar

It pretty much still is. Melee still kicks the butt of any of these methods. Even with the ferocious ring. For example... I did a quick test on dark beasts in Kuradal's dungeon. (Ididn't record all the parameters, which is why I haven't published this as a formal test). Results: Addy knives: 25:05 for 40 kills Rune knives: 21:59 for 40 kills Rune darts (p): 24:49 for 40 kills Whip+defender: 19:25 for 40 kills BTW, if there's a ranged weapon that's underrated, it's the hunter crossbow.

really? i'd find the pressure of having to time the start and ends of kills to be a little much Easily done with a sports timer. Having to count individual hits would require either videoing or extraordinary concentration, IMO.

i still think we'd be best off counting the # of attacks to kill, since we know each attack is a set number of game ticks. Yes, that would be more accurate. Unfortunately, it's also significantly more work -- more than I'm willing to do, personally.

As soon as you reset, your current progress is wiped out. The saved progress is applied to any dungeons you do the first time, until the next time you reset. At your level you should never be resetting at any number other than 35.

Not really sure what you mean here about losing attacks and so forth. The problem with elapsed time testing is that it introduces a whole bunch of variables into the mix -- how much time you spend (if any) picking up drops, where the monsters are when you attack them (since they move around), how far away you are during combat, etc. As for the 28%, you'd be surprised. I did a series of tests comparing two weapons and found wild fluctautions between test runs. The RuneScape RNG is pwnage. ;)

I'm sorry,but they really aren't. You need to do more testing, and on more monsters. I think you'll find that broad bolts are *still* the best option, even in Kuradal's dungeon, which is one reason why the entire ranging skill has been unbalanced by crossbows. The only things consistently faster than broad bolts are insanely expensive (diamond bolts, Karil's, etc.) Yeah because rune darts being 28% better in that test is all because of human error etc, it's way more likely that broad bolts are better anyway! If by "etc" you mean "small sample size", then yes -- rune darts showing as 28% better is all because of "human error etc." The exact method the testing was done by also matters. Did the tester test elapsed time or only the actual time from when combat began to ended on each individual monster? Etc. Makes a big difference. I've done similar tests on various monsters in Kuradal's dungeon and found virtually no difference with addy knives / rune darts (which are basically the same) compared to broad bolts -- except wasting a lot of money. And outside Kuradal's? No contest. As for the crystal bow, it's comparable to the others when nearly full, and nearly as bad as using rune javelins when down a lot.

I'm sorry,but they really aren't. You need to do more testing, and on more monsters. I think you'll find that broad bolts are *still* the best option, even in Kuradal's dungeon, which is one reason why the entire ranging skill has been unbalanced by crossbows. The only things consistently faster than broad bolts are insanely expensive (diamond bolts, Karil's, etc.)

There are ignoramuses on both sides of this. On the one hand you have the people the OP is complaining about. On the other you have fanbois who loudly oppose anyone who makes valid complaints about anything Jagex does, saying something like "uh, software is hard, so they must have a reason why they did that!" Hell, most people even buy that "40 seconds to transfer your profile" bullsquat.

Anything modern but one of those Atom-CPU netbooks should do the trick.

Well, if you enjoy it, that's great! Then enjoy it, and don't worry about what anyone else thinks. Most people aren't worth the trouble.

Who the hell cares how old anyone's account is? What difference does it make? Just another way of introducing artificial divisions and allowing some people to feel superior to others over meaningless nonsense.

Fine, so do it! You obviously didn't even read what I wrote -- I said it was different if you enjoy it, as opposed to just doing it to get a cape because you think it will get you "respect". You do it because you find it "easy to do", yet consider it an accomplishment? Sorry, no, that doesn't make sense. And even comparing doing something constructive and helpful to blowing hours on mindless repetitive tasks in a video game is pretty bizarre.

What is "magnificent" about standing in a bank, withdrawing items, clicking them, and putting other items back in the bank for dozens of hours? This is the exact problem, IMO: this odd attitude that it's an "accomplishment" just to do something boring for endless hours at a time. It's isn't. You want an accomplishment? Take all of the time you'd spend getting a cape just to impress other people, and volunteer at a homeless shelter. It's one thing to do something because you enjoy it; that's what a game is about. It's quite another to do it to show off or because you think it's an "accomplishment". One you head there, you've gone off the rails.

No capes are "respectable". The mistake is thinking of them that way. All that most capes mean is that you have a lot of free time and a high boredom threshold. If you are getting a Fletching cape, it should be because it is something *you* want to do, because *you* feel it is an accomplishment. What everyone else thinks is immaterial.

If you're referring to me, I'm pretty sure I specifically said that some people do that. But many more really do commit acts of violence because they think their imaginary supernatural beings told them to, either directly or through their interpretations of various books. It "seems" that way because of your own biases. But that doesn't really matter -- it's not true, regardless of how it "seems". Most antisemitism over the last 2,000 years has been due to, and with the explicit approval of, Christian churches and leaders. It's not even a matter under debate, just do some reading. The Holocaust has its roots in hatred of Jews propagated by the Catholic church. It is very evident in Hitler's writings and those of his heroes and contemporaries. Again, do some reading. That doesn't mean that it is the fault of all Christians. But it is offered as evidence that Christians who think they are so far advanced in terms of eschewing violence compared to Muslims have short memories. And that's just one example. Not sure what your point is. I never said religion was the *only* reason why people commit violent acts. It's just one reason. What's tragic about it is that it is a completely *unnecessary* reason. It's violence based on myths, superstition, nonsense. If you again, educate yourself a bit, you'll find out that it's not atheists that the prisons are full of. Religious people constantly act like religion is necessary for moral or ethical behavior, but it's simply not born out by the evidence. Secular countries also have lower incidences of violent crime. Silly example. But when someone slaughters 10 million Jews, Romas, and others with cyanide and burns them in ovens, while proclaiming he is "doing God's work", what do *you* call *that*?

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?contentID=2009020828735&method=home.regcon allah akbar oh and http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/world/in-pakistan-rape-victims-are-the-criminals.html?pagewanted=1 Neither of those back up your claim either. I'm no supporter of Sharia -- far from it. But I'd rather criticize what it actually is than a bunch of lies and false claims. You don't help your case by making up things that are so easily refuted.

The claim you made was "if a woman accepts a ride from you, it's legal to rape her. this is true in sharia countries." That's not true. It's total BS. In the Qatif rape case (which you are referencing) the victim was punished for being alone with a male not her husband. That's barbaric and wrong, but it is NOT the same as saying that in that situation it's "legal to rape her". If it were, the rapists wouldn't have been punished. A classic example of how people get facts wrong, twist things around, and start ugly rumors.

There's a difference between just saying "yer a Nazi!" and bringing it up when it is relevant. And it is relevant in any discussion where Christians have an unfortunate tendency to forget some of their own recent history. Exactly. I'm not bringing up Christianity here to try to bash it. I'm making the point that when people start spouting [cabbage] like "Everything I need to know about Allah I learned on 9/11", they should know that the same illogical overgeneralizations can be directed at them as well.

Some of you strive to be like Christ. Lots of you just do whatever the hell you want and then construct excuses for it from your books. Again, you cannot generalize about any of these groups. Proof of what, exactly? If the New Testament is so peaceful, why is it that most of the last 2,000 years has been filled with Christians slaughtering other peoples, or each other? Again -- it's not the book, it's what you do with it. The New Testament is actually extremely peaceful and the entire point of Jesus's ministry is to show Jesus would be a Messiah of peace rather than war. Even if I accept that the NT is "peaceful", that doesn't seem to have translated into anything meaningful in terms of peaceful behavior by Christians over the last 2,000 years. Just one obvious example would be the widespread anti-Semitism in Christianity, which existed for centuries, and was indirectly responsible for the Holocaust. It's only in the last generation or two that the RC church has finally moved beyond this. So it's not like Christianity has been "more evolved" than Islam for a long time or anything. It doesn't matter how wonderfully idyllic Jesus is in your books when people ignore it, commit evil acts and then use "we're flawed" as an excuse for it. All of this really goes to my overall point, that trying to prove that one religion is more peaceful than another by cherry-picking quotes out of "holy" books is utterly pointless. Prove it. I have never heard of any such thing.

Proof of what, exactly? If the New Testament is so peaceful, why is it that most of the last 2,000 years has been filled with Christians slaughtering other peoples, or each other? Again -- it's not the book, it's what you do with it.

I don't need to find anything anywhere. History has shown repeatedly that Christians who want to do evil acts find whatever they need whenever they need it. Right up to the present day. Doesn't matter what's actually written there. Nor does the convenient "ignore the Old Testament when we tell you to" red herring. The so-called "peacefulness" of the New Testament hasn't done squat to stop Christians from committing unspeakable acts. Violent extremist Christians are the minority -- and so are violent extremist Muslims. It doesn't matter what's written in silly books, only what people try to interpret them as.

And only very extremist Muslims fly airplanes into buildings. So why the double standard? Sounds like someone hasn't read very much of the Bible. There's sufficient nonsense in any "holy book" for anyone to use it to justify anything. If you want, I can expand on this. But I guarantee you won't like it. Christians who want to draw grand conclusions about Islam based on what 19 people did should first check the insurance on their glass houses. They have plenty to be ashamed of themselves, including in very recent memory.

That's exactly why you see bumper stickers that say "Everything I need to know about Allah, I learned on 9/11." Lmao, where can I get one of those? Why would you want to put something so patently ignorant and foolish on your car? Aren't you worried that there might be some intelligent people in your neighborhood who might see it and learn something about you that you wish they hadn't?

Start a poll asking players the following. "Which would you prefer: A. Being able to get more than 2 billion of an item; or B. Getting an additional 400 bank spaces" See if you can predict the results. ;) Yes, they could kludge something so coins were handled 64-bit and everything else wasn't. This would require changes to nearly every part of the code.

No, they just start unnecessary wars and blow up abortion clinics. There are radical and evil people in *all* religions, because religion by its nature attracts absolutists and those who are looking for a higher excuse to do what they want. It's just easier to notice them in someone else's religion than one's own.