sees_all1

IDK compfreak, I think the idea has potential. Can I try to expand upon it? Let's say the minigame is a safe one, so when you die, all of your stuff is returned (everything, not just your three items). This minigame is also only played on 2 worlds, 1 F2P and 1 P2P - so it'll be crowded with people doing this. -There are specific items you're allowed to have and not have, sort of like FoG. Heck, make it like FoG, and you're only allowed to start the game when your inventory has nothing in it. -When you teleport out, you'll either be assigned to one of two random tasks - the first is to try and get back to the castle, the second is to try and kill people getting back to the castle. -If you're the former, then you'll be given 6 bandages, and your stats will be reduced in some fashion, and any boosted stats will be reduced to their normal level. -You will gain a special type of skull. Only people playing the game on the opposing side are allowed to attack you. -You'll be given one random teleport, that will teleport you to some other location on the map that is approximately the same distance to lumbridge from where you are now. -When you return, your score (tokens) are based upon how many bandages, HP, and teleports you have left (100 * % hp left, 10 per bandage, 40 for teleport) Rewards are based upon the number of tokens you get. -If you return successfully, you can opt to "chain" your run - and you'll be teleported out with the same things you have left. -If you successfully return, your score will be sum of previous + N*(current+50), where N is the number of chained runs. If you don't return successfully, you won't receive any tokens at all (even for successful). -Each time you go back your skull will increase in value, and display the multiplier (making you a more lucrative target). -There are no safe spots on the map as this is a safe minigame. -If you're the latter, the hunter, you'll receive 6 potions - 2 increase your strength by 40%, 2 increase your attack by 30%, and 2 increase your prayer by 50%. Each potion has 3 doses. -You will also receive 1 teleport to take you directly to a high value person. -Your score will be 10*(kill value) for each target killed. So someone starting on their first run will have a kill value of 10, someone on their second will have a value of 20, and so on. -At any time you may opt out of your position, and receive tokens base upon your kills. -For every 10 people you kill, you'll get a bonus of 50 tokens. -Every so often you'll get a random target - killing this individual will give you double the points than you would normally get. You may opt to teleport to this target for just the normal points you would get, instead of double. -If you and another person dealt damage to an individual and they die, you'll receive points strictly based on HP dealt. Oh, there should be level differences. There'd also be some nice rewards for the tokens... either 1 token = 5 experience, or something else to be determined. IDK, I had fun trying to expand on the idea :P Take what you want, leave the rest, give credit where you take my specific ideas.

This would be way way way too easy to macro with. Figure a decent computer algorithm can solve a rubik's cube in <1 second, and from there it's just clicking (world record holders solved the cube on the fly in under 20 seconds)

That's because there's a HUGE market for them in F2P. If you made wave spells, and blood runes F2P, deaths would crash and bloods would explode (unless there is some P2P thing holding deaths at a constant price that I'm not familiar with - can anyone help me with this?) Sorry to be all nit-picky about economics terminology, but the demand curve would shift rightward (due to more people able to buy) and the supply curve would remain constant (due to the same number of people able to craft blood runes). This would mean a greater quantity supplied at a greater price, but not a greater supply. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand if you don't understand. Anyhow, what this would generally do is make P2P runecrafting more profitable to more people (assuming that blood runes rise above the price of double nature runes), and make more people want to get the 70 runecrafting, until an equilibrium was achieved between double nature runes and death runes.

You know everyone, I noticed a difference. I believe they developed this update for me. When I run firefox, I've got the stumble toolbar, the ChaCha guide toolbar, and I always show tabs even if there's only one. This takes up a large bar in my screen, and it allows me to play the game without viewing the advertisement. That's right - I can't see the advertisement when I play on firefox. Firefox is notorious for having memory leaks, when my computer bogs down its either 1 of 2 reasons. The first is McAfee decided to start running. The second is Firefox decided to leave its memory cage and is now taking up 200-300 MB of ram (my computer's old... it only has half a gig total). With this update, hopefully it'll do three things for me: 1. Never take up more than 100 MB of ram while running. 2. Never change keyboard focus when the adverts switch. 3. Let me play RS on HD even though my computer probably wouldn't handle it anyway. But, I'll test all that out later this week. Time for class :P

O RLY? ... Sorry, its hard to take you seriously because of: AHHHHH, They stole my kidney. You get the idea. Oh, and your magical rainbow stomping unicorns should spawn from candy mountain.

You have it entirely wrong. The F2P version of runescape deserves to be a game all unto itself, even the CEO said this. P2P is meant to be an "expansion pack" - not the "full version". In most of our opinions, the higher level F2P combat triangle is broken, because mage is non-existent, and range tanks dominate. The one thing you can do to fix it would be either implement my suggestion :P Or give F2P snare, wave spells, and the 10% spells.

Or you could just make the rune requirements more consistent. E.g. the lunar spellbook uses mostly earth and water runes. Staff like that would just destroy everything what's left of combination runes and staves. Well, it costs 1m for an elemental staff. All the other combination staffs cost <200k, but I suppose I could increase the price some more? From what I've heard combination runes are dead anyway.

My bad - must've missed 'em. Nothing against you, so to make up for it, here we go: I find that too. Currently, we have to take into combat death runes, air/fire runes, earth runes, water runes, and nature runes. If we want to lower their stats, we also have to take in body runes. My fix: The Elemental/Contemporary Staff. Requires 60/70 magic to use, but it provides all the air, water, earth, and fire runes you could ever want or need. That would make it so the only other runes you'd carry into battle would be death, plus the others for special abilities (call it chaos and body, with the option for mind and nature). This would put it on par for melee - who need to take in strength potion, r2h, runes for a teleport (and possibly monks robes for no arms) - 5-7 spots 10% can be huge - if you're fighting someone with a stat at 70, now its 63. The higher up you go, the better it gets. 1 spell which lowers all three would be impractical, or rather, overpowered, IMHO. Plus, if it splashed, would it splash on all three, or two out of the three, or just one? And the stats regenerate at the same pace, currently you can't cast weaken if they're already weakened - would it be the same way for all three? They won't. Meleers have such a big negative magic bonus, same with range. Even if they had positive in the magic stat, their other defenses would be much weaker, making them an inviting target. This doesn't pertain to my idea specifically, so I won't include it. I like the general idea, so if you make a new thread with this in mind, I'll support it. That would be a different suggestion that would affect all spellbooks, not just mine. Because it would affect all spellbooks, I'm not going to include it here, I believe its in a different category than "Spellbook & Quest" If you made a new topic of this, I'd support it. I wouldn't say "yay" or "nay" to something based on the difficulty of programming. Besides, Jagex has already figured out a way for this to happen with the Great Orb Project, and lower obstacles they could just make the person "hop" or "trip" over it, like fences, ditches, or plants, where others they'd stop against it such as walls, trees, etc. See the spell "debase" - I think it does what you're looking for.

For god's sake put some thinking into your post before you talk crap and insult your own intelligence. quel - calm down. treat others as you wish to be treated. I've already explained why his idea wouldn't work, without flaming him. From now on could you do the same? PJing is a problem as a whole - it isn't native to any class. However, none of them have a 100% effective way of dealing with it. If a melee pj'd a range, how does the range deal with it? Thing is, he doesn't. When a range pj's a mage, how can the mage deal with it? Right now, he can't in F2P, but with the steps I've outlined, he can. Shove, like all other spells, can be cast from a distance. So there's no "running up". With the steps I've outlined, you'll get hit about 6 times, but you might just be able to finish off your opponent. Otherwise, teleport.

1st - when you're up against these "amazing players" - most of your team will quit. Take this opportunity to observe how the "amazing players" play, what they're doing, how they're doing it. Try to replicate what they're doing, and you'll get better. 2nd - You can do anything you want when you're on the favored team, except "hug" or repel. These are the two deadly sins of GOP. If you hug orbs (i.e. attract them all the way into yourself and continue to attract it well after its stopped moving) or if you repel without a clue (wield your repel wand and click on your orb, and just wait 10 seconds before realizing, hey, I'm hurting my team), the good GOP players will hate you. We have a term for these types of individuals - idiot fruitcake huggers. Don't be that. 3rd - observe player's behaviors during games and during in betweens. If you suspect they're really that good, write their name on a sheet of paper. If you see them on the other team, you can either tough it out or break your wand before the match starts. Same if you see them on your team. 4th - learn where to stand, how to play. BioIce made a superb guide on how to attract orbs in, included were pictures. I think its called "Basics of attract". Just a little tidbit about BioIce - she retired after she accumulated 1M tokens. That's right, 1M tokens. Her clan chat was also home to most of these amazing players, since she's left we've moved on to other clan chats. 5th - If you can't learn in a competitive environment, learn in a non-competitive environment. Play a couple 50-50's, where you split the wins. And by the way, most of these good players can single handedly defeat an average team - I think the average score these guys get is about 26 on air, 8 on mind, 20 on water, 8 on earth, 26 on fire, and 24 on body. So if they're yelling at you to get out of the way, it's because you're losing them valuable experience.

I know you won't like what I'm about to say, but Range is supposed to be better than mage. However, using a few spells combined that are already given, one would have a thin chance to stop a range pjer - 1. Cast shove on the Ranger (this will take about 2 spell turns to complete) 2. Cast cement on your opponent (they're held for 15 seconds) 3. Cast cement on the Ranger (they're held for 15 seconds) 4. Cast disport - this will give you a small chance to get out of range of one but not the other 5. Hit your opponent with your Pulse spell. Repeat as needed. This wouldn't stop PJing, and it would make magic > range for F2P. Unless the spell splashed often on the ranger, but then again that would make the spell worthless.

Sorry, what did I bring up exactly? And by the way, it it is nearly impossible to adopt a child today, because all the "unwanted" children are aborted (this is a consequence of eugenics, by the way). The person in question could just want a child who has their genes? OR they want to actually give birth to a child - something they can't do when castrated. How is forcing someone to get an injection, remove their genitals or take a pill is invasive: So if the medical term doesn't get you with the first two, the intruding on privacy gets you. Forcing someone to take a test to determine their intelligence violates a right to privacy. Forcing someone to take a pill to castrate them is a violation of a right to body. Forcing someone to become sterile is a violation of a right to have one's own family. There - three basic human rights that you would violate with your idea. Compfreak - YOU HAVE NO IDEA. You don't know that person, and saying that because one person posted something that wasn't logical or didn't make sense on the internet that all people should be forced to take an intelligence test, and then be subjected to castration based on their score on that test is illogical. What if, just what if, the person posting that was being sarcastic? What if it was someone just like yourself, who hid behind the anonymity of the internet and made a stupid decision? That individual has a total of 17 posts - 14 answers, 3 questions. Could it be it's not a cheerleader? The idea that you can cure all of man-kind by "removing undesirable traits" is a cruel and hopeless one. That idea is the driving force behind racism, bigotry, and genocide. It's a historical fact. Even if you did manage to kill off all stupid people (because lets face it, that's the goal of this, to kill off all stupid people), you'd still be left with "relatively stupid people". If you say "everyone with the lowest 1/3 iq should be castrated", eventually you won't have anyone left, because slowly but surely you're killing off mankind.

Compfreaks' idea wouldn't solve anything - there are still deaf, blind, mentally disturbed people in the world, even though about 70-80 years ago, about 60,000 individuals like this were castrated in the United States alone. there's a nice fat wikipedia entry on this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Eugenics itself may seem like a "good idea" with "decent goals", but the way you'd go about doing it (AND the way its historically been done) is barbaric and is a monstrosity in and of itself. It rapes the dignity of a human being, and it basically says to everyone in that class: "Look it, I don't like you, and because I don't like you, not only am I going to harm you, I'm going to make sure you don't have a family, or a normal life anymore." So, you'd be willing to have your 'nads removed because I don't like your characteristics? I'd imagine it would be painful, but more than that it's invasive. But it would affect their lives. Its the same thing as, you need to wear a yellow Star of David on the outside of your coats so we can easily identify you. That's a bunch of logical bull that doesn't even apply to this situation. And the underlying premise, that you're not impeding someone's desire by castrating them is wrong. What if that individual wanted to have children? Then you're stopping them from having children, you've stopped their "desire". Is sickle-cell anemia a desirable trait? No? Well, its the product of your "weeding out" - Approximately one third of all aboriginal inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene. Do you propose that we castrate all these individuals, because they have a "detrimental" gene in modern day society? Surgically removing someone's genitals is "non-invasive"? There is no test that can accurately measure a person's intelligence. Most tests today are criticized for not being able to account for someone's "artistic intelligence". Besides, the cheerleader you're referring to in your original post could pass one of your intelligence tests - what's being described is nurture rather than nature.

Compfreak - you don't get it. You're making people out to be "sub-human." Its alright if we maim them, they're not people. What if I told you that you had some undesirable traits, but since you've already procreated, there's nothing we can do now except castrate your children, who carry your traits? What you're un-apologetically saying is that "dumb" people are undesirable, and that is wrong. Its equivalent to what the Nazis did. It all starts out with one person, with their idea that there are "classes of humans" that certain traits are desirable, and that we know what traits are desirable. Its what spawns all bigotry and racism, and if you can't understand that, then you've got serious issues.

That's the same mentality that the Nazis had about 70-80 years ago. Its eugenics, and it isn't something to joke about. Every mass homicide in the history of the world started with thoughts of "Well they're not human, so we don't have to treat them as human" or "How is life worth living in that condition?" GJ, jerk.

It's a pride thing. I see myself as a skillful, accurate, and objective debater, and keeping track is a way for me to verify it. Sometimes you get pretty sarcastic... so I wouldn't call you "objective". But that's just me. Anyhow, what are your conditions for "Winning an argument" - is it getting the other person to see your point, or is it getting the other person to not only see your point, but agree with it and leave theirs behind? Same with losing - is it you have to abandon your ideas, and agree with the other person, and support their views? Back on topic - I would NOT want to see this happen. While santa hats, party hats or h'ween masks ARE tradeable, they no longer symbolize the holidays - just wealth. However, my skeleton suit, chicken suit, and cornucopia all symbolize the holidays, and not just any holidays, the ones bygone. They help prove the age of my account, and let people know I've been around for a while. If you made these items tradeable, they would become like the rares - just a measure of wealth.

The CB has a level of what, 700+? That's less than a 3% chance of looting it with 99 thieving. What about for lootshare and coinshare, the chance for looting the monster is (sum(all thieving levels)^2 / (4 * (monster level^1.9)). The 4 can be some other scale factor... maybe square root of number of members? For Coinshare, the clan owner (or level specified in CC options) is allowed to toggle group looting, and whatever gets looted is immediately sold on GE for min, and all the coins are distributed amongst the clan. For Lootshare, each individual is randomly selected as they are now for who gets the drop/gets to loot it. Once again, the chance for looting the monster for any one individual is the same as the clan's chance. Each individual can decide for themselves to turn looting on or off. I thought the idea of the monster coming back to life was interesting.... but this definitely would not work for lootshare. I'll take it out from my first post.

I read the original suggestion, I skipped most of pages 2 through 3. I see Compfreak's point that making the rare drops less rare with this thieving idea would mess up their prices. I also think the underlying idea (thieving from corpses, possibly getting xp and possibly getting more of an item) has some potential. I don't like the table you proposed for what monsters you're allowed to loot, because I don't see the chance involved. So, let me attempt to make this suggestion a little bit better by proposing a change in it: When you kill a monster, and you're using this new option, it leaves its corpse on the ground. Anyone is allowed to thieve any corpse that they killed, but the probability of getting something extra is based upon the monster's level and the player's thieving level (I'll get to that in a second). -Any item that is dropped that is in the "Rare" table will be dropped as normal. The probability of getting one of these drops does not change, and you're still able to loot the corpse. -Any item that is normally dropped in the common table will not be dropped at all. Instead you have to loot the corpse to get it. If successful, You'll get whatever item you would have gotten multiplied by 1.5. If not successful, you won't get anything. -Any item that is dropped 100% will not be dropped at all. If you're successful in looting the monster, you'll get whatever item normally is one the ground, plus an extra. If not successful, you won't get anything. Looting the 100% drop items is completely independent of looting the normal items - you can fail at one, and not the other, fail at both, or succeed at both. You'll get thieving experience based on the level of the monster if you're successful at looting it. What is the probability of getting a drop? ((Thieving Level)^2 / (Monster level)^1.9), if it's above 1, it will always happen. So someone with 80 thieving looting a level 150 monster will have a 47% chance, Someone with 99 thieving looting a level 126 monster or under will always loot it, Someone with 5 thieving looting a level 10 monster will have a 31% chance. [hide=originally suggested - but not recommended.]What happens if they fail? Well, I'd suggest that not only does the person not get the drop, but the monster (potentially) comes back to life with 10% of it's HP. If it does this, it dies without a corpse. I'd say the probability of this happening is monster's HP / 300. That way low level monsters almost never come back, but high level monsters usually do.[/hide] Not sure how lootshare would factor into this, or even if it could. let me know what you think.

Actually, I think I was in a similar situation to the time he described... I was down to about 16 hp, no food left, I click tele and here comes molly telling me to save her from her evil twin... Worst part is that when you get done, you get tele'd back to the place you were, with the same amount of HP, you have to "click here to continue" and all the time someone could jump you... PVP + randoms = bad.

This is actually what I was looking for, and no, I didn't see that little bit of text on my initial scan through. [hide=shhh]I wanted to know this with the first set of data posted here because the guy used cockroach soldiers, and those are in a multi-combat zone, with probably more than 2 people hitting on it at the same time, so its more than likely that 1/10 of his data are end hits, or the wrong data :/[/hide] I did the GOF test and got a p-value of .02 without the end hits - I'm not sure what I was expecting, however its interesting to note that you hit 2 much more often and 15 much less often. However, all the middle parts (basically) had differences of, I don't know, <1. It was the data with 15 that really screwed up - it's value was 8 something out of all the 22 - if I could just ignore the weak hits of 15, the p-value would be much closer to about .2, meaning no conclusive results :P

I already went over this with Compfreak, and he understands it. How about you try what he suggests, and find a nice, quiet place by some fence where you can use the terrain and binds more effectively, and where it'll be a semi-rare occasion to see more than 1 person at once?

how about r...s.... = RS !!!! ftw. anything else people have found?

Thanks, I already posted that, twice, in fact. I'm aware that you can write your own Math.random or override functions in the Random class - that's one of the integral parts of an OOL. What I'm looking to do, though, is figure out what's going on inside the method. The only way I can do this is to carefully take data - I can't make assumptions and be like "Well, it has to be like this, otherwise it wouldn't make sense" or extrapolate much beyond the data that I take - until I can build a reliable model, test that model at some higher level, and then show that my model is correct with the data I collect. Good news - the cabbages today have an attack value of -1... and draynor cabbages raise your defense by 1/2.

When you collected your data with the deadly red spiders, did you include the finishing hit on them?

Well, only for range. If melee says its no fun to have a mage overpower them, I couldn't care less.