Cacmypants

New graphics and animations are shiny and orgasmic :| seriously, the old animations were too rigid

It needed more TOWER DEFENSE !!! -.- !!!

ohhh, I got carried away on the hair lol. Ill see if I can fix

[hide=] [/hide] Fixed the shading on the first one Added another one

There's something hilariously suss about the dude (Marnot) with the beard. [hide=] [/hide]

Any touch-ups I should make before I put it through illustrator? (Note, it's only about 10cm long irl)

I'll probably end up making them 100 pixels high instead of 150, but first I'll experiment with a bigger game window.

I simplified my method a little

Yeah, I noticed the border, cbf fixing it. I'm pretty intent on perfecting my own sprite method, if it doesnt end up working too well, I'll have to settle for the pixels. I'll know once I get the first running animation done.

I'm a little impatient with pixels, lol

I chose a vector base because I want a kind of smooth untraditional feeling. Lol, my friend was like: "WTF is with the glow!", he's kind of right, it might cause problems in terms of collisions, very slight problems. I'll probably end up redoing it anyway, it was admittedly half-assed (I'm pretty new to Illustrator, so far from what I've experienced, IT IS GOD). oh, and that's fine, skull, you dont need to remove it, did you do it pixel by pixel?

[hide=] gunna need to make alot more frames for the animations, oh gawd.[/hide] EDIT: I think I'm getting closer, lol

Having a rusty pin slowly pushed through the center of your belly button, then being forced to do sit-ups until you die.

So one occurence is enough proof to make a statement? Apparently it is so. :? I see... so does that mean visage drops are common for those people who manage to get them within a few kills? (of course not)

lol, have a look over past screenshots of the game 3 years ago and compare it to now, then do the same for a screenshot of runescape classic.

Yeah, how? Don't spout rubbish without giving evidence. Honestly speaking, I don't see HOW the [bleep] lowering max hits would screw things up. As long as the "damage resistance" is reasonable. How the hell are you supposed to efficiently train with higher leveled enemies resisting your damage? Don't say "uhhh, damage resistance should only be pvp", that's poor game design (inconsistency). While on the other hand - having exp remain the same (e.g. you normally hit a 10, it resists down to 5, but you still receive 40 exp), it would make training combat too easy (each enemy yields more exp). It pointlessly throws things out of balance either way. Pfft, Imagine how long F2P combat would take with damage resistance. Anyway, we already have the divine and elysian shields (ignoring the cost), and that's how Jagex intends to treat this concept, purely as a fancy perk for the wealthy. Why shouldn't we alter the combat system? Because much of the game thus far as been constructed around it, it would more negative impact than positive. There's nothing wrong with the combat system now anyway, RS is unique. All your points are true. I think the combat system could be altered still - maybe in a new version of RS? RS4? Mechscape? I don't know. Were did rs3 go. :lol: Your point about combat being to easy is outwieghed by the monster having more hp so you would need more food or higher healing food so it would cost more and even then you probably won't be able to stay there as long as you previously could. Instead of ignoring the cost of those shields lets look at it, 390 and 343 million, this is not a practical means to increase your chances of survival in certain places, for example your not going to take something that cost that much in to a pvp world. Yes, exactly, a "fancy perk for the wealthy". and... what? food? Take ankous for instance.... as it stands, 5k worth of monks will return ~200k+ in drops from a good hour of training. The slight increase in damage you would be receiveing would probbaly make that initial food cost 7-10k depending on your combat level. Is that a big change?

Yeah, how? Don't spout rubbish without giving evidence. Honestly speaking, I don't see HOW the [bleep] lowering max hits would screw things up. As long as the "damage resistance" is reasonable. How the hell are you supposed to efficiently train with higher leveled enemies resisting your damage? Don't say "uhhh, damage resistance should only be pvp", that's poor game design (inconsistency). While on the other hand - having exp remain the same (e.g. you normally hit a 10, it resists down to 5, but you still receive 40 exp), it would make training combat too easy (each enemy yields more exp). It pointlessly throws things out of balance either way. Pfft, Imagine how long F2P combat would take with damage resistance. Anyway, we already have the divine and elysian shields (ignoring the cost), and that's how Jagex intends to treat this concept, purely as a fancy perk for the wealthy. Why shouldn't we alter the combat system? Because much of the game thus far as been constructed around it, it would more negative impact than positive. There's nothing wrong with the combat system now anyway, RS is unique.

Indeed, lowering max hits would screw up everything.

That's probably a good idea. I was a little focused on displaying the weapon, but yeah, behind the shoulder makes more sense.

Funny how you commented on the two exact spots I felt iffy about (boot and waist). thx for the weapon compliment X] I'm totally pumped for my next attempt, lol

Constructive critisism please

Being strapped down and having all of your skin peeled off with brute force starting from an eye-lid, then being dumped into a vat of rancid dog piss.

Damnit. I typed that word, looked at it, thought "is the verb the one with the -e, or the noun?", said "screw it", and went and ate a fish taco. I hate fish tacos. but fish is goooooood! Now I want sushi...

..... Are you REALLY this naive? Beating an innocent woman half to death then raping her isn't the result of a troubled mind. Torturing a little kid with a hand drill isn't the result of a troubled mind. Ordering the brutal and industrialized murder of around a dozen million people isn't the result of a troubled mind. It's the result of being an evil sonuvab#$%^. If you find someone doing anything like that, you don't try and get them to counseling. You make damn sure they can't do it any more. No one seriously defines themself as evil. You have quite a dramatized perception of life (remember that we can't trust the media). There are always different degrees of mental instability and varied motives amidst malevolent minds - they give their own actions reasons that seem entirely justified. Selfishness, power-lust, greed and misguided belief systems are a result of foul up-bringing, no one is evil at heart and everyone has the capacity to be fixed. Punishing people for their crime(s) never works to absolutely prevent further offenses. Sometimes people's lives just suck so much that they don't care what anyone else thinks, they don't even care about themselves - have you ever felt that depressed or rejected? It may cause the pursuit of a warped desire for pleasure (also the result of a stray mind). So your opinion is that a person's evil actions aren't their fault, but their upbringing's? That MIGHT work with a percentage of it, but with most SERIOUS crimes the only person/thing that can be really blamed is that person. Besides, if a bad upbringing is all that made people go bad, then what about the people who had a bad upbringing and DIDN'T go bad? Do we just lock them up because they might end up the same way? Once you get past a certain point (such as raping an 8 year old girl, for example), you simply can't blame anybody but the person who done it for what they did. To try and do so is insulting the victim(s) and minimalizing the atrocity committed. I think we are straying from the original point... (an argument revolving around the nature of the human mind is essentially circular) There is no person that believes that they are evil, the notion of 'evil' is classified by public morals and precedent (it is through reflection that one may conclude that their own actions were of an evil nature; they do not consciously accept that they are evil while carrying out 'misdeeds') The concept of evil is a human construction. There is always more than one perspective and these perspectives are shaped by context.

Hence what I just said :P