1dhunter

at least 20k def exp for completing it. No you can't do it with those stats....

Its the most annoying quest ever.... I HIGHLY suggest to train your agility a bit. btw, you need to defeat some lvl 92's so bring something to kill them

I'm talking about the darklight special attack... I will use annther weapon for normal attacks. Darklight spec drains stats and is more effective at demons... Question is: does that actually help?

try reading your link before posting plz, it doesnt answer my question... :wall:

is the darklight special usefull at td's? I don't mean the normal attack to remove the fireshield but the special which drains the demons stats. Should I use another spec weapon (d hally?)?

I don't get how you can repair the temple in shades of morton....:S My char says that I dont know how to repair it? What am I doing wrong?

Has anybody actually done the maths for this? Screw it, I'll do it now. Slayer helm+fury is better. by about +5 in both slash and strength. right but salve(e) beats slay helm+fury...

btw, ruby rings in zanaris shop is an option if you want but it requires buying new rings after 27 alchs:S just buy from the shop and alch them...

diamond bolt (med price) 846 ea. diamond bolt (e) (med price) 909 ea. runes required for enchanting 1 cosmic, 10 earth(use earth staff:p), 2 laws ea. cost around 750 ea. (909-846) * 10(you'll enchant 10 bolts at a time) = 630 750-630 = 120 gp loss for each enchant. You'll need around 150k enchants so 150k*120 = 18m loss total for 99 magic. prices may change while your doing this so its possibly more or less of course... Not only quite a bit faster but a pretty cheap option^^ gl at 99 magic btw

There's no real alternative for them for lower prices.. (Alching feathers or noted junk would lose some more money but you dont need to spend a lot to buy the items.)

1: bolt enchant is quicker 2: bolt enchant is cheaper (at least when I did it a few months ago, most likely still cheaper) 3: diamond is most efficient unless you got an insane amount of money (better bolts give better exp but it gets quite expensive to buy tons of dragon bolts...) 4: they sell really well, instantly most of the time... 5: bolt enchanting requires a good amount of money to be efficient. You'll enchant 10 bolts every 1,5(? just a guess:p) seconds so buying enough for training a while would require some money:p

soul wars isnt that good. About 5 zeals/hour on average. that is at your lvl: 25k exp? 25k + the exp you'll get in game is quite low... (at 96 range not even 20k/h) so that would mean 45-50k per hour. Not that good even for your lvl. 3m (rough guess) from 80 would probably be about 84 range... btw, 80+ is quite low for gwd. Try to get at least 90 range before trying.

agreed =D> but unfortunately compfreak doesn't seem to care about freedom...

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... order=page Here's a source. Where's yours? That's not reallly relevant to what your saying. In fact it got nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion? Relation of maternal intelligence and schooling to offspring nutritional intake... wtf? I'm not talking about nutrition intake compared to intelligence and schooling of the mothers...

By costing the lives of millions of other children? I don't think so. Same failing argument again, the costs of other childrens lives? :wall: Yeah, perhaps one that's actually relevant to the discussion. This proves what about hereditary? :roll: just a few examples to show that less intelligent parents don't always getr smart kids... I'm talking about the physical task of taking out the garbage -.- "404 error - page not found". Brilliant source. Ok, its the UN's declaration of the human rights. Your idea is violating 6 articles (25%).... I didn't notice a 1 letter typo, I saw a completely unreadable sentence. Grammar was invented for a reason, learn it :roll: Yea sure, still waiting for some arguments from your side... They'll come when you stop pointing to grammar etc? Not bigger, stronger, being able to do a lot of stuff which the protozoa can't do? Last I checked, we were moving away from big, strong apes into slender, intelligent human beings. Are you stronger then an ape, or smarter? =D> Your as strong as a protozoa? Im smarter then most apes and stronger then some species.... \ The size of humans is growing for at least 2000 years.... Romans used to be around 1,5m. Nope, but adopting millions of otherwise dying children will. Where do all those kids come from suddeny? Then why did you bring it up? You did :wall: So the Nazis deemed some people 'unfit to live'? This has precisely what to do with your argument? They thought about mankind in exactly the same way like you do. They divided humans in lesser or better persons. Your saying the exact same thing. They tried to make the race of mankind smarter (and blond), you want to do the same (in another way yea, the nazi's started 'peaceful' to). Sorry, but disagreeing with you (and having the facts to back it up) isn't immaturity. Come up with a new insult and stop parroting that endlessly every time your argument fails. =D> I'm the one bringing arguments... The only argument you used is saving millions by adopting.

Not at all, it was simply an add on to the original post. I believe that a person has a right to raise children if he or she wants to, and that right should not be deprived of them. they do have the right to get their own children AND to raise children. Yep. Where do all those children come from? They would die if they wouldn't be adopted? wth :ohnoes: :shock: A lot of children are adapted every year, not only by smart people but also by less intelligent couples... http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... order=page Here's a source. Where's yours? couple of examples: albert einstein isaac newton need more? Those smarter people ARE us. Just because your in the top 70% of the population doesn't mean you suddenly don't want to take out the garbage. Your plan was to stop that 'garbage' from getting children in order to make sure mankind's stupidity. That means you want to decrease the amount of unintelligent person being born every year. This is just another way of taking out 'garbage'. Using the word 'garbage' is not appropriate... Sure, find out what part adoption violates. Then compare that with letting them die. Adoption doesn't violate any laws. The restriction of not being allowed to get your own children does violate laws. Solid proof: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.htm Read article 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 16. Your welcome to marry who you want. If your both average intelligence, you'll have children. If your far below average, you'll adopt. That simple. What is the limit for this getting children? There will be a huge amount of persons around that limit? Don't you think they will be afraid of not being allowed to get their own children? It wasn't an argument against you, it was an argument against your unreadable sentance. Since you seem to have dropped it, I'll respond to this argument instead. Allowing couples to save childrens lives instead of letting them die sounds like a fair idea to me. I'm not quite sure what radding wikis are, but I'm not forcing nature to move in the direction I want - it's in the direction of more intelligent. Are we smarter then single celled protozoa? If so, then intelligence is the direction we've been moving throughout the course of nature :roll: I'm not that sure if that's the direction if you can't read my sentences if there's a 1 letter typo? Your only smarter then a single celled protozoa? :lol: :lol: :lol: Not bigger, stronger, being able to do a lot of stuff which the protozoa can't do? Nowdays? Nope. Thankfully, my idea doesn't affect that in any way. It does, that's the whole point of natural selection which you said you wanted to stimulate.... Not any more, or we would be below apes on the pecking order. Yes, christian. Thankfully, I'm covering all three areas at once - by saving dying children via adoption, I'm far outstripping the 'violations' of having parents children be non-hereditary. The dying children argument again :ohnoes: :thumbdown: Preventing unintelligent from getting children won't save many children from death... #-o Yeah, I did. Could you quote a source on that? I don't remember adoption being a part of the holocaust. It's not really a part of the attack on pearl harbor either... Adoption has sure as **** nothing to do with the holocaust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics read and learn from history... I stated the facts. It's his fault if he takes offense to them. This is the final proof of your immaturity...

Gee, thanks for proving my point. Proving MY point only, first you say they should be castrated later saying they should adopt smarter kids? Well, if they are to dumb to get their own children they wouldn't be the best parents for those smart kids? Actually, that's exactly what they said. Nothing wrong with adoption. See above, stupid parents with smart kids is a good combination.... I do, and what about the tens of thousands of children who die every day that could be adopted? I've got no idea what your trying to say here.... dieing children could be adapted by parents when they cant get their own kids because of e.g. infertility? There is sold proof that stuipd parents produce offspring that is, on average, less intelligent then the offspring of smart parents. Actually, thats surprisingly incorrect. Yep, that's why no rights violations are taking place. This is just plain bs. You want me to search for it in a declaration of human rights? That means nothing to you? Uhh, where did this come from? From what you suggest? Your trying to build a future with 'smarter' persons... (maybe its an idea to read your first post again). All those smart persons won't like to do the simple jobs which still needs to be done.. No it wouldn't, if I was unintelligent I'd adopt instead. It's that simple. It's not that simple. Intelligence isnt a switch. What if your just an average person? Not smart like you but also not really unintelligent? Whould you force such people to adopt instead of getting their 'own' children? What if one of the parents is a smart person and the other is unintelligent? I don't even know what your trying to say. If English isn't your first language, get a friend who knows how to speak it and have them post for you. English isnt my first language indeed:( (save = saves btw) ad hominems aren't very good arguments.... What I meant is: the fear of being not smart enough for getting your own children. Don't forget many couples would like to get children, their own children... (yea, adoption is a good choice if you can't get them.) Maybe that means nothing to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest Except we're not killing the unfit or affecting their lives, just substituting their children's genes for someone elses. I don't have to rad wiki's about natural selection, thats part of my study... Your forcing nature to move in the direction you want, doesnt sound like it has ANYTHING to do with natural selection. Not a chance, natural selection has turned us into highly intelligent but less physical capable descendants of our dumber, more physically fit ancestors. Not entirely true. We developed but thats not due to natural selection. Are less intelligent people not capable of living a human life? Did I say that anywhere? Nope, you want to create some sort of intelligence selection so I assumed to do the same with another important factor. Isn't physical condition very important to be succesfull in most areas? Of course. Treating all humans with kindness and compassion, and ensuring the rights of none are violated (as wel as saving millions of unadapted children from death) would be the greatest humanitarian act the world has ever known. I don't think your god (your christian?) would want you to NOT treat humans with kindness and compassion, violate human rights, discriminate, etc... As I told before you DO violate someones rights and I doubt a less intelligent couple would want to adopt children instead of getting their own? Ready and waiting. After reading your comments: you really believe this? You ignored the part where I said the nazi's tried it (and failed). Sorry, but just because someone's opinion is different then yours doesn't mean they are immature. Not that adults can't act immature too. Offending other people with no reason at all is a perfect example of immature behaviour. p.s. I'm gonna get some sleep so it will take a while before I reply:)

I said less intelligent people should adopt instead of reproduce to replicate natural selection. The other alternative is to let all the week and sick die as would be standard had we not evolved medical technology. Which one is more humane? this is what you said You didn't say less intelligent people should adopt, you said they should be castrated. You don't think they have the right to get children like you do?(don't know if you got kids btw) Just because your smarter? You know the germans tried it and they failed? You know the intellect of a person is not the intelligence of someones parents combinated? You know a lot of intelligent people (I mean academical, university and stuff) don't have 'superhumanchildren'? You know intelligence is like a circle where being a genius meets being insane?(like a clock where 12h/0h is in fact the same time...) You believe in human rights? You think some superhuman would like to do all your dirty jobs? You know your pointing to a future where the limit to get children would raise and your (love)life would always be a race to pass for your exams? You think such a fear save humanity? You think natural selection has anything to do with this? A lot of this 'less intelligent people' are better prepared to survive this world compared to someone like you? You know a lot of them would be able to survive when your superintelligent people wouldn't? Do you really want some physical exams to create the ultimate human? Your deeply religious (as you said..), would your god accept this? Got some more questions but I'd like to have some answers at this ones first... p.s. IMO your post is a perfect example of an adult posting something immature....

I respected you compfreak and I seriously hope your just kidding but your ideas are a bit offensive... You have literally no clue what your talking about. You may know a lot about science, computers and rs but this is exactly the same way the nazi's started thinking and we know what happened... Just think for a second about what you said... :shame:

the ONE and ONLY place to use accurate is when pjing people in pvp worlds with dark bow spec... (just do't do it plz....)

1: droprate of visage at steels is more like 1:2000. Not 1:150. Not 1:100000 2: Droprates aren't gonna help you at all. The drops have no impact at a drop next time so each time you kill a steel dragon your chance of getting a visage is 1:2000. It doesnt matter if its your first or your 10000000000000000s dragon. 3: A droprate means you'll get 1 visage in every 2000 kills ON AVERAGE!!!. If you kill an infinite amount of steel dragons you'll see your averaging 1 visage every 2000 kills exactly. 4: If your trying to mage steels for a visage you'll very likely end up spending enough money to buy 1 from the g.e.:P

paw? I hit 39's with same str lvl:)

tried it and they do stack! Max hit is definately higher using void. End of discussion pkease

I tried ranging (94 ranging, pot, void, pray and diamond (e)'s)... magic still beats ranging, even fire wave or slayer dart did:S

that just shows he knows what he is doing and who cares about a lvl 138 without slay? After lvl 55, slayer is pretty much useless...