curtis95112

That's irrelevant, if he bought supplies before he should sell them for 50-100% profit before/during the weekend. Using them would mean he is paying that 50%-100% extra per potion. Yes, but that would be merchanting :shame:

Couldn't log in, went to account recovery. Entered my email address and was told that an email had been sent to that address. No email. Checked the spam folder but no luck. Anyone know what to do in this situation? Or how to write on RSOF without an acc? Thanks

I disagree. Drop rate is just as valid as drop chance. In fact, I'd argue drop rate is better if only because the majority of people use it.

W00t!!! Free cabbage!!1111oneone Expect some explosions near draynor

The drops are probability. The rate means how many items in total have dropped and can be used to determine the APPROXIMATE probability of said item dropping.

YES that IS WRONG. Hence why the chances of surviving depends on a more specific probability; which is probabaly incalculatable because of the number of factors that influences your survival. What the hell have you been reading man? You basically said my idea is correct, and now you're saying I'm wrong I was pointing to the "rate" in "mortality rate".

I suppose if the mortality rate of ebola is 80% your survival will depend solely on whether the number of people who contracted ebola before you was a multiple of 5? I think you're just wrong.

Yeah I did, I always write posts without wasting exp but writing the posts can take many hours sometimes, especially if I am having tasks which take lots of concentration and clicking. You should write an autobiography. You might never get #1 on the New York Times but you'll have a niche market of hardcore fans. :thumbsup:

23,243,546,765,754,345,678,654 > 2,147,483,647 or even 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. Jagex wouldn't use anything but primitive data types, so you're wrong. Just being nitpicky but it wouldn't be too difficult to circumvent that. Just spin the figurative wheel three times. But santas still aren't there.

Ah, thank you.

Or take away the [] and censor it to ".(epsilon)xe". Are greek letters supported? .εxe like that? Yes, how did you do that?

Or take away the [] and censor it to ".(epsilon)xe". Are greek letters supported?

Quite mature. It's an answer you don't like, therefore Jagex is full of [cabbage]. That is how logic works, see? :mrgreen: I don't care that I'm flamebaiting here, to be honest. The answer is extremely clear - The scripts are not allowed. It doesn't matter what they actually do, you asked for and received an answer from the guys that decide everything. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is Jagex's game after all. It's just that they're being infuriating. I especially sympathize with Wicked. Hours and hours of coding just trying to help people, and Jagex gives the default reply in return. Not that it was much of a surprise of course. But you do have to wonder if their answer might have been different had a tech guy looked through the scripts and Wicked's reasoning. And done it properly, not the skimming that seems to have occurred. In any case, that's this matter wrapped up.

I note that Bly is now arguing something very different from what she was arguing a few pages ago, which was different from what she was arguing a few pages before that. Hmm...

Is there an exp limit?

Of course not. I doubt the technical team spent much time on it, if any. Anyway, thank you TIF for providing their reply.

If it's common sense, surely it would be quite easy to explain why. I would never pretend to know anything about those weapons and as such would never moderate a topic with that without advice from someone who does know, but just because what you're claiming is "common knowledge" doesn't mean you're exempt from justifying it. Actually, it does. If you don't know that rapier is the best weapon in almost every situation, you should not be posting in metagameing. If you want to state that ccbow w/ rigour>crapier with turm, YOU need to prove it, not those who are following the overall trend, as your idea is the exception, and theirs is the rule. This just brings back Nifflin's example again: [spoiler=Example]Five monkeys were in a room that contained a table in one corner, and a banana hanging from a string in the middle of the room. The monkeys figured out that if they dragged the table to the middle of the room, they could climb up and grab the banana. So they did. As one of the monkeys quickly hopped up and reached for the banana, hidden compartments in the walls suddenly opened, releasing high-pressure cold water that knocked the monkey off the table and drenched the other four monkeys. They quickly learned that whenever one of them climbed on the table, all of them were soaked with cold water. They realized climbing on top of the table was a bad idea. Unbeknownst to the monkeys, the high-pressure cold water hoses were disconnected and removed. The next week, one of the five monkeys was removed from the room and replaced by a new monkey. The new monkey saw the table and the banana dangling from the ceiling. Realizing that the banana was there for the taking, the monkey headed for the table. But fearful of being drenched by the high-pressure cold water, the other four monkeys pounced on the newcomer and beat the tar out of him. Every time the new monkey got near the table, the others beat him up. Soon the new monkey no longer went near the table. By the third week, another of the original five monkeys was replaced by a new monkey. And like the monkey the week before, the newest member of the group tried to get near the table to move it over to the banana. Once again, the others beat up the newest member of the group. Even the first new monkey joined in. Each successive week, one more of the original monkeys was replaced. The same thing happened every time; when the newest monkey attempted to get near the table, the others joined in to discourage him. By the sixth week, not a single monkey was left from the original group. Not one remained that had been squirted with cold water. But when the newest monkey headed toward the table and tried to reach the banana, the other four monkeys trained him by beating the tar out of him. If you could ask each monkey why it was beating up the new monkey, each probably would say, I dont know, that is just the way we do things around here. Without proving something the first time it just becomes something that's accepted with no factual proofing to ever back it up. I find it hypocritical that the moderating team has been accused of following the forum rules blindly (which we try our best not to) when the forum users accusing us of this want new metagamers to follow their word of mouth without telling them the proof behind facts being discussed. That's why that sticky is needed quickly. But in the meantime, burden of proof should be on the one making the dubious claim. Especially since the C Rapier has been analyzed to death on a certain thread before. New users are good, but you can see why you'd want people to have a certain amount of expertise before butting into discussions. Having to prove everything would slow the discussion down and may very possibly derail the topic. The thing missing is a goos resource for new users to educate themselves with. Preferably without having to read every thread on Metagaming. Hence, the sticky.

+1 lol. A most wonderful 8000th post =D> That being said, wonderful pic lol.

Actually, bots are better than loafers in minigames. Loafers do nothing, bots contribute to some extent to the team. So, loafers, how does it feel being worse than a botter? Add the fact that the botters are using their time better. Infinitesimal risk of getting banned, nonzero contribution to the team, and you can be doing something else entirely! Jagex seriously messed up on this one (no surprises there). Disclaimer: I do not endorse botting.

Bots are now sophisticated enough that this wouldn't work without inconveniencing legit players. Runescape being browser-based just makes it worse.

Indeed, imagine if banning 10,000 bots was a requirement for the trimmed CC. But I have no faith in the general RS population. Most likely Jagex will be found smothered to death underneath a heap of false reports.

What? So rules are now applied differently to different people? And I was thinking guilty until proven innocent was the big problem here... Silly me. Should have caught the hint way earlier. There's something seriously wrong with the moderation here. And btw, you never explained why we can't see Darkdude's original inquiry and Jagex's reply. We don't even know if it was an email. Upon asking, I was told "It's simply Jagex's wishes that we do not say", subject here being the method of communication. Forgive me for being assuming so much, but shouldn't the links have been left up until the scripts were declared illegal (Not gonna happen, but hey) and not vice versa? Were the links to TEF's MAIN PAGE posing such a great threat to TIF's innocent users that would never even dream of botting until they just happened to stumble on a certain thread that had admins telling people to keep the rules? If I may repeat myself, there's something seriously wrong with the moderation here.

Hear hear. =D>

Is Jagex reverse engineering the scripts via whitespace?

Thing is, this conversation shouldn't even be happening. Jagex shouldn't have made the main req for the completionist's cape an afkable one. It's naive to blame the players for afking. It's like putting trade limits in with inaccurate GE prices and expecting people to refrain from junk trading. What the heck did Jagex expect will happen?