i_trollz_u

L0l! it's a game. You can't charge young teens real life money for getting a computer to play a game for them. Also bots do bring something to the game, you must not realise the scale of botting. How much do you think sharks would be if they wern't botted? Or herbs? Or infinity robes? Those things take hours in game but cost relatively little because thousands of people bot them. Jagex realises that there needs to be bots, that's probably why they reduced their punishments. But then you get the skillers saying, "It's losing me moneys because I fish, woodcut, etc!" ...When really, there's nothing stopping them from coming to Nex, Bandos, or staking like the rest of us. [/hide] Or the price of raw materials could skyrocket and skilling could actually make money like it was designed to? And 99's would retain some value? Face it skillings dumb and boring, if you really have fun because you feel a sense of accomplishment then it shouldn't matter whether you make money or not. Skilling might make money but like I said what about the majority of players who hate skilling and only combat? Sharks could well be like 4k each, the price of GP would be down because noone bots yews and they lose their alch value. Noone bots anything so everything is really expensive. Probably the majority of what you buy is botted. This shouldn't be a game revolving around clicking/putting in loads of time, the edge it has on other MMOs is the PVP and market. Merchanting is still a way better way of making money than botting. And more interesting, do that if you want money. If every raw material rose to ridiculously high prices, I would start skilling for money lol. And why would that be a bad thing? I don't see how clicking a frost dragon over and over while drinking the occasional potion is suppose to be much more fun than clicking a tree or fishing spot. Flipping isn't very interesting either, there's a reason it's an afk way to make money.

L0l! it's a game. You can't charge young teens real life money for getting a computer to play a game for them. Also bots do bring something to the game, you must not realise the scale of botting. How much do you think sharks would be if they wern't botted? Or herbs? Or infinity robes? Those things take hours in game but cost relatively little because thousands of people bot them. Jagex realises that there needs to be bots, that's probably why they reduced their punishments. But then you get the skillers saying, "It's losing me moneys because I fish, woodcut, etc!" ...When really, there's nothing stopping them from coming to Nex, Bandos, or staking like the rest of us. Or the price of raw materials could skyrocket and skilling could actually make money like it was designed to? And 99's would retain some value? collecting raw materials would never be good money even if bots were removed and who are you to say what is something was designed to be? it doesn't matter what someone would be designed to do, the only thing that matters is what it actually is If everyone had the same mentality as everyone who says skilling sucks that i can guarentee you skilling would be extremely profitable, otherwise no one would do it, and no supply would be in the game. If botters were removed the supply would fall so drastically that the price would be forced to rise to the point to where there is an incentive to skilling. Economics 101. And reverse logic proves skilling was meant to be a way to earn money - botting caused skilling to be a useless waste of time, and botting was never meant to be. Thus skilling was never meant to be a useless waste of time, and there is suppose to be a reason for people wc or fish other than total levels.

L0l! it's a game. You can't charge young teens real life money for getting a computer to play a game for them. Also bots do bring something to the game, you must not realise the scale of botting. How much do you think sharks would be if they wern't botted? Or herbs? Or infinity robes? Those things take hours in game but cost relatively little because thousands of people bot them. Jagex realises that there needs to be bots, that's probably why they reduced their punishments. But then you get the skillers saying, "It's losing me moneys because I fish, woodcut, etc!" ...When really, there's nothing stopping them from coming to Nex, Bandos, or staking like the rest of us. Or the price of raw materials could skyrocket and skilling could actually make money like it was designed to? And 99's would retain some value?

how do? what does the numbers mean.

No, but you are expected to use the best weapons available to you. That is to say, if you have access to a Katagon 2H and can wield it, make sure you aren't using something like a Zeph longsword or something. ya i got kicked for having a kata 2h lol. It might as well be an official req.

No, he didn't dump it. He just rarely goes on his main anymore. And it's not worrying about having too much gold, it's worrying about not having enough. Stuff doesn't cost much as a noob, but when you get to be a high level, it's often difficult to afford anything. Unless you're making a pure or something, stuff is still going to cost the same, only instead of it being difficult for a high level it just isn't achievable for a low lvl. If the point is to just not think about the stuff you wold want as a high level, i don't see why you have to create another account to do that. Just not care? Honestly it is up to the person what he wants to do, I just thought the guy that just dropped 125M could have achieved his goal with much simpler and fun means, and that the goal was in of itself kind of silly.

.

I call [cabbage]. In no way is playing with a crappy bank fun. I don't see how the experience in the fight caves changes whether you have a decent bank or not, and it would only be more fun if you had great gear. Btw i'll take the 125M off you're hands anytime you want to have a little fun. How can you call [cabbage] to someone's personal preferences? Would you call [cabbage] if I said my favorite fruit was an apple? Sheesh Because you could have all the fun you would have without the money with the money. it would be more like calling [cabbage] on someone saying they preferred to have a rotten apple, rather than a fresh one because they find it more challenging to and entertaining to have stomach viruses in return for the taste of eating the apple. If someone thought fight caves was to easy with max gear, just buy welfare gear and do it, you don't have to dump your bank to have fun. If, for some odd reason someone did not care about any of the gold they had, they could just spend it on a bunch of pk gear, or some really high armour, and then go pking and see what happens and get a kick/lots of kicks out of it. Or they could just go stake with it. Risking your bank for some excitement would be a lot more logical than simply dumping it. I also don't see what you mean by 'worrying' about having too much gold. Is it going to overflow your bank and the evil gold monster going to kill you?

Says the troll. Last I checked, max herbs/rest maples was the best. But since the RoW update and drop table changes, I don't know how proftable herbs from MTK are I'm afraid. Keep in mind you don't actually need to decide what you want to collect until you actually collect from the kingdom. You can switch it right before if you want :P http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Calculators/Miscellania who da trol nao.

Coal and trees are the best prices now. Both earn greater returns than herbs.

fixed. Genocide and authoritarianism in other countries is ok, as long as it doesn't affect US interests.

mutlilog/lootshare off another account. It's the only way summoning pures get their lvls up, aside from cheating.

I call [cabbage]. In no way is playing with a crappy bank fun. I don't see how the experience in the fight caves changes whether you have a decent bank or not, and it would only be more fun if you had great gear. Btw i'll take the 125M off you're hands anytime you want to have a little fun.

What about Sudan, Rwanda, and the numerous other genocides or human rights abuses that the US has been criticized for not intervening in? I don't think you can say those were not pointless slaughter of civilians that represents hate crimes and ethic cleansing which are even worse atrocities than the crimes Gaddafi is committing. Waiting for other countries to ask for intervention really just proves that the US has become more clever in deception and demonstrating of political tact. It certainly does make it seem like the US is subjectively picking it's fights. The US seems to be showing a disturbing trend to intervening in particular countries that have oil resources (even though libya is like 2% of the worlds oil). Doesn't seem to have much to do with human rights, as much as corporate interests. The justifications for "humanitarian" intervention has always been a bit sinister, and despite any positive effects this intervention may result in, the US needs to rethink it's methodology in foreign affairs.

The only people that say they enjoy runescape more than real life are the ones who haven't truely experienced it. that's utter bull [cabbage] and you damn well know it. you aren't the one who decides what has happened in someone's life It's not that inaccurate to assume that in most instances playing RS didn't do anything that would help someone be successful in life. A fantasy world can never achieve the same effect as achieving the same goal in real life. This is obviously an arbitrary statement, but knowing karate is generally accepted by the majority of people as more valued than having a character with maxed CB on runescape. Real life cash is also more valuable than gold in a fantasy game. (RWT is a stupid and generally very little profit industry, don't go there). Someone mentioned becoming inspired to go into the video game industry, but you probably didn't need to play as much as you did for that to happen (this is a guess, but i think don't think it's an unreasonable assumption). Granted, you could do other useless stuff, but then it becomes a question of whether the other stuff would be worse or more time consuming than runescape, which is impossible to generalize about. However, i think the argument that the nature of RS makes it more time consuming than other hobbies with generally less benefits to be gained in the eyes of the majority of society has merit.

Runescape will be "beaten" whenever someone feels they don't want anything more out of the game.

Where do you get that idea from? The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO. Tell me if I'm wrong? And to post abovce ^^^ You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously. Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't. But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :) If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first. The Tea Party, I presume? That's even worse. Now we have three parties. One in the middle, one on the right, and one on the radical bat[cabbage] insane right. And that proves america is undemocratic how? The democrats/republicans do a pretty good job representing the majority of the population, and the tea party represents the idiotic part of the population. Explain what part of the population is not represented through the political system, or how members in the House and president aren't under the direct control of the people (president is basically determined by popular vote, bush was a rare exception). While the political system has a huge bias towards preserving the status quo, which does result in massive inefficiencies and maintenance of incumbent political figures, neither prove it's undemocratic, but rather a necessary consequence of democracy and representation in government. First Bold: Currently in the United States political climate neither the poor or other denominations of the working class have any representation in either congress or house of representatives. The mere fact it takes millions of dollars only goes to prove the point. Case 1 to prove the point is what has happened in Wisconsin recently via revocation of bargaining rights(it didn't just apply to teachers you know). Second bold: No, in no way shape or form is the president of the United States elected via popular vote. Instead, that position is decided by the electoral college which often does go with the popular vote, but the two are not dependent on each other as there are a few cases where they decided not to go with the majority vote(and one where they had the electoral and still was not elected president). [spoiler=Electoral]In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular (inasmuch as we actually have records of it at that time) and the electoral vote, but was not elected President. In 1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes by 3% in the popular vote (though somebody in another thread said that was mainly because he suppressed the black vote in southern states), and lost the EC by 1 vote -- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina were all extremely close, and the board appointed to examine them was composed of 7 Dems, 7 Reps, and 1 Independent; however, the Independent resigned and was replaced by a Republican, so the board ruled that all three states had voted for Hayes. In 1888, Grover Cleveland was the incumbent President, and barely lost his home state and the election to Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote by less than 1%. Third Bold: What the Supreme Court of the United States did there was actually unconstitutional as the constitution expressly leaves the electing of the president to the electoral college. If in the event of a tie, in the electoral and majority, then Congress decides the final vote. In terms of the actual topic of the thread. In terms of actual greed, I would say that the federal government is still stuck in its' imperialist days from the 1800s and early 1900s, while on the other hand I can easily say that the majority of the common folk in the US are not as greedy as one would think; or rather as much as any other human. There are people in congress that represents the poor working class. You're just wrong there. The entire democratic party attempts to cater to lower income people, well at least more than the republican party. Unions do too. No group in the US is necessarily represented any more than the other in the government, rich or poor. Each representative in the electoral college has always followed the decision of the citizen's state, hence the reason presidents have to appeal to the public and win the votes of the majority in each state. Bush was an exception because of an incident in florida, but the electoral college (although not forced to), always follows the decision of the people in it's state. First bold: Name one that has the track record to prove it. Second bold: Unions may have had their hayday back in the 1920's and 1930's. but ever since then their power has been waning which has resulted in the Wisconsin ordeal. Third Bold: Right now, in the US, 400 people have greater than 50% of the wealth, which translates to them being richer than over 155 million Americans. In addition to that, nearly all of that wealth is not even being put back into the economy and in effect has been removed. My point still stands that if you do not have the support of Msnbc, CNN, Fox, and the other big mainstream outlets you do not have a chance of becoming president of the United States and that requires 10s of millions of dollars; if you are in a party outside of the democrats or republicans this is double true. To further add insult to injury, most if not all of the House representatives and Congressmen have come from already wealthy backgrounds. Fourth Bold: The recount was legitimate and I did provide a few examples where the electoral did not go with the citizens. I'm not sure how any of your points prove America isn't democratic. Wealth =/= political power, and the wealth distribution is wholly irrelevant to the characterization of a democracy. Most of the top 400 richest people in America do not have any political power. The media is not biased towards those that have more wealth. They didn't buy off media, more attention is just focused on the incumbent candidate and the political system just favors the status quo more than change. You have a flawed misconception in how people get elected - the winning candidate gets does tend to get more funding and funding does play into who gets elected, but the funding rarely ever comes from any personal budget, they get funded from outside PAC groups. The examples you are citing are literally more than a century old. The electoral votes are basically determined by how the people in a certain state vote in the present day.

Where do you get that idea from? The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO. Tell me if I'm wrong? And to post abovce ^^^ You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously. Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't. But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :) If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first. The Tea Party, I presume? That's even worse. Now we have three parties. One in the middle, one on the right, and one on the radical bat[cabbage] insane right. And that proves america is undemocratic how? The democrats/republicans do a pretty good job representing the majority of the population, and the tea party represents the idiotic part of the population. Explain what part of the population is not represented through the political system, or how members in the House and president aren't under the direct control of the people (president is basically determined by popular vote, bush was a rare exception). While the political system has a huge bias towards preserving the status quo, which does result in massive inefficiencies and maintenance of incumbent political figures, neither prove it's undemocratic, but rather a necessary consequence of democracy and representation in government. First Bold: Currently in the United States political climate neither the poor or other denominations of the working class have any representation in either congress or house of representatives. The mere fact it takes millions of dollars only goes to prove the point. Case 1 to prove the point is what has happened in Wisconsin recently via revocation of bargaining rights(it didn't just apply to teachers you know). Second bold: No, in no way shape or form is the president of the United States elected via popular vote. Instead, that position is decided by the electoral college which often does go with the popular vote, but the two are not dependent on each other as there are a few cases where they decided not to go with the majority vote(and one where they had the electoral and still was not elected president). [spoiler=Electoral]In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular (inasmuch as we actually have records of it at that time) and the electoral vote, but was not elected President. In 1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes by 3% in the popular vote (though somebody in another thread said that was mainly because he suppressed the black vote in southern states), and lost the EC by 1 vote -- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina were all extremely close, and the board appointed to examine them was composed of 7 Dems, 7 Reps, and 1 Independent; however, the Independent resigned and was replaced by a Republican, so the board ruled that all three states had voted for Hayes. In 1888, Grover Cleveland was the incumbent President, and barely lost his home state and the election to Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote by less than 1%. Third Bold: What the Supreme Court of the United States did there was actually unconstitutional as the constitution expressly leaves the electing of the president to the electoral college. If in the event of a tie, in the electoral and majority, then Congress decides the final vote. In terms of the actual topic of the thread. In terms of actual greed, I would say that the federal government is still stuck in its' imperialist days from the 1800s and early 1900s, while on the other hand I can easily say that the majority of the common folk in the US are not as greedy as one would think; or rather as much as any other human. There are people in congress that represents the poor working class. You're just wrong there. The entire democratic party attempts to cater to lower income people, well at least more than the republican party. Unions do too. No group in the US is necessarily represented any more than the other in the government, rich or poor. Each representative in the electoral college has always followed the decision of the citizen's state, hence the reason presidents have to appeal to the public and win the votes of the majority in each state. Bush was an exception because of an incident in florida, but the electoral college (although not forced to), always follows the decision of the people in it's state.

Where do you get that idea from? The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO. Tell me if I'm wrong? And to post abovce ^^^ You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously. Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't. But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :) If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first. The Tea Party, I presume? That's even worse. Now we have three parties. One in the middle, one on the right, and one on the radical bat[cabbage] insane right. And that proves america is undemocratic how? The democrats/republicans do a pretty good job representing the majority of the population, and the tea party represents the idiotic part of the population. Explain what part of the population is not represented through the political system, or how members in the House and president aren't under the direct control of the people (president is basically determined by popular vote, bush was a rare exception). While the political system has a huge bias towards preserving the status quo, which does result in massive inefficiencies and maintenance of incumbent political figures, neither prove it's undemocratic, but rather a necessary consequence of democracy and representation in government.

How did you get 60 dung without binding a single item?

At 73 RC im getting like 30k/h using the fastest methods.

I think the capes should all have minimal stats. And in particular the Uber cape. Because if you love Melee - Strength, attack and defence, but not Dungeoneering and getting 99 in all skills. Then you will not be able to get Uber cape if it turns out to have crazy melee stats. Seriously, why should a player who loves 3 skills have to get 99 in all skills as well reach CRAZY 104M/120 dungeoneering? So with that said, i hope that all capes are decorative and if they do have stats that it can't compare with current capes. I don't see a problem with say, the quest cape or the uber cape giving +12 prayer though. Because you need to have access to soul wars capes to unlock those two capes anyways. If someone really spent that much time playing the game it would probably be fair to give them a cape that has some other use other than decoration, that is better than a cape done gotten after one quest.

The veteran cape really shouldn't give any decent stats, considering it's not really something that's earned at all. i have some junk accounts i still remember that are like 5-6 years old that i never even play on. Account creation should never give in-game advantages. It would certainly screw up pvp if it gave any str/offensive stat bonus.

Sluge menage - prossy Love story - chipped tablets adds like 5 new teleport locations you can use. As a first resort - pools Everything said above is a good idea.

This. I don't think there was very much good in this "era" anyway.