dpattle

My question is just equipment in general. Some people say we will soon reach the end of rs equipment updates (ie weapons, armour and such mostly). Do you think this is true? If Jagex continues to come out with newer and newer items, wont they have to get stronger and stronger naturally? What happens when they become too too strong? Some people say certain things are overpowered now, but what happens when everything can hit in the 50's regularly? How will pvp cope with all the updates that are sure to come? i wish i could go into more detail about this, but its hard to say it all. Also, there have been different suggestions about how this could be avoided, like my personal favorite, banning weapons deemed "overpowered" from pvp but leaving them for higher lvl monsters still to be released. And my least favorite, raising some current lvs past the max, most likely hp so the new higher powered weapons wouldnt bother pvp too much, as i just cant imagine how that would be done. what are your thoughts on all this...? What should be done to prevent all this. Because all i know is that stopping rs updates just really isnt a choice tbh. I know its a mouthful, and i was actually thinking about making this a full fledged article first, but i think i prefer a forum topic. Edited, better? sheesh

well, i'm not sure exactly why someone would buy an account? imo the fun in developing your acc the way you want is what it's all about. If you just bought an account with straight 99s then there would be no point anymore. on the other hand, if my account was taken hostage i wouldn't pay for it, i don't negotiate with terrorists :shame: I'd be like that guy in that new movie taken and hunt down who ever the [nice guys] who took my acc were. Lastly, i just found this...I think it's actually very interestingly wierd...i didnt even know people did this...why do people do this?? lolz. Admin edit: Do not post such links ~ Siobhana Ok, now really lastly, the only time I'd buy an account is if it had like 3a and i could go bh and kill it with my acc and get all the stuff. :thumbsup:

lolz, but if you can't wear rune, then you can't wear granite either. thats where the whole levels arguement comes in handy. yes you can still do f2p level things, but sometimes thats not always really worth it.

true, but i think what people are tryna say is that if you became a memb at such a low level that you really couldnt even do many member things, then what would have been the point? It can be a real waste if you dont have the levels needed for what ever you're doing.

Amen \ =D> =D> =D>

[hide=] How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist." Yet you continually capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol: Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say? Soz to double post like this instead of on one...but before i left, i just wanted to say, There is still much debate even over the BBT itself, it can hardly be agreed on at all even by the scientist who understand it the most. Lastly, it state that it is still a theory that is still being developed. In the science world itself, a theory is stated as something that is NOT proven, but just accepted as being true. But if it is not proven, how can it then be stated as fact and put over religion? Wouldn't religion and BBT and evolution all be at the same place since none have actually been proven, even if all have some evidence? Even some of the things used to arrive at conclusions for BBT are using other theory's!! This just seems somewhat weird to me. If I could just butt in, there are a few points I want to make. First, it's worth getting the scientific view on the BBT correct. It's not true that there is significant debate that the big bang is the best model; most cosmologists accept it as such. [1] Sure, there may be some debate about the details and some problems to iron out, but there is no other alternate model which explains as much of the evidence as well as the big bang. Religious ideas weren't formed when we knew about cosmic microwave background radiation and the red shifting of galaxies, so they're not going to be able to cut it with modern science when it comes to explaining the evidence we find. Added, religious ideas don't adapt to the evidence like science does, and they can't be empirically tested. Religious ideas are based ultimately on faith and personal conviction while scientific theories are based ultimately on the objective empirical evidence available. While it's true that in science a theory is not something which in it's entirety is proven, good theories do contain many facts and some of their main tenets may be treated as facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence. I'm not sure exactly how cosmologists treat the main tenet of BBT, but from what reading I've done it seems it's treated as good as a fact. It's also worth realising that the main purpose of a scientific theory is to serve as an explanation and to make predictions to be tested to further our understanding. They're not half-baked ideas yet to be proven. ... Well see, My problem is that it's not KNOWN for sure. and isn't that the whole problem people have with religion? They say it's not KNOWN for sure. Sure there are facts behind the THEORY, but there are facts about religion that are just undeniable, some that science itself even verifies. Why then, being theory, which is comparable to religion "theory," can someone put it higher than any other "theory's" so to speak. The fact of the matter is that it can still be wrong, especially when you get into the technicalities of it which are very hard to speak on seeing as we have never actually been able to prove any of it. It's not always useful to be completely emphatic in what you're trying to say. Dogmatism is never really useful, but when speaking scientifically it's just a shorter way to say things. For example, if you drop a stone you can't be certain that it's going to obey the laws of gravity and hit the ground, but it would be useless to question this every time you dropped a stone. Nothing can ever be a fact if you view things in this way. The amount of supporting evidence is what gives one theory more weight than the other because it decreases the likelihood that it's incorrect. [/hide] and i understand that, but am i wrong in saying its still just a theory? And thats it's still not known for sure? And obviously i can't question it every time, but BBT hasn't been proven at all, not once, and noone at all is completely sure it's 100% true, for when doing proofs, if even one part is incorrect (especially on universal scales) everything else is then negated. Well i'm out, we're doin midterms and i finished my exam way early...ofcourse tip.it was the first thing i thought of. lolz. (hmm, they should have an "addicted" emote. woulda been great here. lolz.)

How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist." Yet you continually capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol: Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say? [/hide] Soz to double post like this instead of on one...but before i left, i just wanted to say, There is still much debate even over the BBT itself, it can hardly be agreed on at all even by the scientist who understand it the most. Lastly, it state that it is still a theory that is still being developed. In the science world itself, a theory is stated as something that is NOT proven, but just accepted as being true. But if it is not proven, how can it then be stated as fact and put over religion? Wouldn't religion and BBT and evolution all be at the same place since none have actually been proven, even if all have some evidence? Even some of the things used to arrive at conclusions for BBT are using other theory's!! This just seems somewhat weird to me. If I could just butt in, there are a few points I want to make. First, it's worth getting the scientific view on the BBT correct. It's not true that there is significant debate that the big bang is the best model; most cosmologists accept it as such. [1] Sure, there may be some debate about the details and some problems to iron out, but there is no other alternate model which explains as much of the evidence as well as the big bang. Religious ideas weren't formed when we knew about cosmic microwave background radiation and the red shifting of galaxies, so they're not going to be able to cut it with modern science when it comes to explaining the evidence we find. Added, religious ideas don't adapt to the evidence like science does, and they can't be empirically tested. Religious ideas are based ultimately on faith and personal conviction while scientific theories are based ultimately on the objective empirical evidence available. While it's true that in science a theory is not something which in it's entirety is proven, good theories do contain many facts and some of their main tenets may be treated as facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence. I'm not sure exactly how cosmologists treat the main tenet of BBT, but from what reading I've done it seems it's treated as good as a fact. It's also worth realising that the main purpose of a scientific theory is to serve as an explanation and to make predictions to be tested to further our understanding. They're not half-baked ideas yet to be proven. ... Well see, My problem is that it's not KNOWN for sure. and isn't that the whole problem people have with religion? They say it's not KNOWN for sure. Sure there are facts behind the THEORY, but there are facts about religion that are just undeniable, some that science itself even verifies. Why then, being theory, which is comparable to religion "theory," can someone put it higher than any other "theory's" so to speak. The fact of the matter is that it can still be wrong, especially when you get into the technicalities of it which are very hard to speak on seeing as we have never actually been able to prove any of it. Lastly, i realized while reading last night, (i'm at school atm and cant get on the site for some reason**) that it expresslly states that BBT is the theory for how the world developed, not how it was created. This reminds me of a friend of mine who had once made the statement that science doesn't exist to contradict God or religion, but rather to prove [Christianity] it. Since religion explains the beginning, maybe the BBT is right and after God created it, it expanded and developed? I can't say for sure, maybe and hopefully one day we will be able to. Be it at the 2nd coming of Jesus, or when man is finally able to touch on the harder to explain and verify facts of the universe. **Hell i'm suprised i can even logg in as i couldn't just a few days ago. I can't even go to tip.it homepage, I have to type it in on google and go to one of the posts. lolz...but we do what we have to?...lolz \

Exactly, its a theory, it could infact still be wrong! so why state it as a fact and put it higher than religion??

I so totally think you're right. I wish i had invested in them as soon as they came out...my friend bought 11 min price around midday the day they came out. I know the d claws spec is way better than the dds, plus it has a better str bonus. That kinda settles it. The only thing is when i wanna poison a monster that is hard to kill, else claws almost always win. Although, one could take both and use two dds specs to poison and 1 claws spec to get a good hit. Or just use all dds specs and wait for the spec bar to come back and use claws spec. Do you have to do damage with DDS to poisen? Or can I just hit 0? @dpattle: The reason I think the dds is better for pvm lies in the fact that (slayer) monsters generally have little to no defense which makes the dds's higher max the better choice. However, it could also be argued that the use of 2 d claw specs + 2 hits with a whip > 4 dds specs. I think I'll test this out on my current slayer assignment (black demons) and, if I remember, post the results here. @1245780: I am pretty sure you have to do damage to poison. I have never heard of anyone doing otherwise and any guide that mentions the use of poison, in my experience, also mentions that damage must be done for the poison to take affect. I see, i'm not too sure myself but i dont think you HAVE to do damage to poison. Theres the possibility i'm wrong though. But the first thing that comes to mind is The sara mage on lvl 3 clues. he poison's me and yet usually doesn't hit anything while he does. Maybe thats just for him though...just to make sure you're poisoned or something...lolz.

[hide=] How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist." Yet you continually capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol: Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say? [/hide] Soz to double post like this instead of on one...but before i left, i just wanted to say, There is still much debate even over the BBT itself, it can hardly be agreed on at all even by the scientist who understand it the most. Lastly, it state that it is still a theory that is still being developed. In the science world itself, a theory is stated as something that is NOT proven, but just accepted as being true. But if it is not proven, how can it then be stated as fact and put over religion? Wouldn't religion and BBT and evolution all be at the same place since none have actually been proven, even if all have some evidence? Even some of the things used to arrive at conclusions for BBT are using other theory's!! This just seems somewhat weird to me.

There is a substantial amount of scientific and well-tested evidence to support the Big Bang theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html It's ignorance like this that gives Christianity such a bad rep. :lol: lolz? its long...ill read l8r...1 am here, bed time for me =) and btw, dont say things like "It's ignorance like this that gives Christianity such a bad rep" because it's just rude. and lastly dont forget, that before evolution theories and BBT, there was always Christianity and belief in God~though they were not called Christians at the time~and hell, the world was sure as hell better then than it is now.

EXACTLY!! =D> =D> =D>

Not according to your last post: "When arguing against the existence of God, you are arguing against all perceptions of him." um. I think he said you as in you venom :roll:

I so totally think you're right. I wish i had invested in them as soon as they came out...my friend bought 11 min price around midday the day they came out. I know the d claws spec is way better than the dds, plus it has a better str bonus. That kinda settles it. The only thing is when i wanna poison a monster that is hard to kill, else claws almost always win. Although, one could take both and use two dds specs to poison and 1 claws spec to get a good hit. Or just use all dds specs and wait for the spec bar to come back and use claws spec. Do you have to do damage with DDS to poisen? Or can I just hit 0? Well, i'm not 100% but last i checked you still have a chance of poisoning even with 0-0 specs or just hitting 0 normally w/o the specs

well thanks for killing my hopes and dreams of getting dclaws. Guess i should start gearing up towards that quest cape so i can do WGS and kill tormenteds and [hopefully] get my own...only a months work :wall:

wow. wth was the point of that post?? sheesh...some people.. :shame: :shame: btw, you should at least give them a chance first, and watch at least the popular ones; naruto, bleach, and death note.

The claim was that believing in the easter bunny is just as logical as believing in god, that is not to say they are both equally true or untrue. The whole point of that analogy is to demonstrate that without empirical evidence a belief in any god is just as reasonable as a belief in an easter bunny because you cant factor faith into the logical state of something. Actually, the only logical claim for some kind of god I can think of is not believing the universe could be in an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches, or multiverses or whatever. wow I sound like an atheist lol. Yes, yes you do. but faith aside, you just can't compare believing in God to believing in the easter bunny with that statement, and try to say that both are untrue. This is because people have a reason to believe in God, as opposed to people who "believe" in the easter bunny. Christians as an example; we have the bible, the "works" that are still happening today, the different prophesy's that have indeed come true, and historical non-christian proof that Jesus, a main part of Christianity was in fact real and was believed at the time to be the son of God. People who believe in easter bunny is completely different. the statement was to put the two beliefs in a "group" of sorts and say that since the easter bunny belief isn't true, the belief in God isn't either. The reason they are not both "just as logical" is because Christianity has a sorts of "proof" that the events believed in did actually occur; the easter bunny has never had any proof whatsoever. This is almost the same tbh as the big bang theory, as it was developed by a man out of the blue blue sky after he was mad at his church. There was actually no evidence to support it. OT ~ i almost didn't wanna make this post...wanted to keep the count at 3030 replies...cool number. [im random]

Well then yes, you're one of the very few people who actually see those as week. i'm sure there are others though. lolz. But then again consider your stats...that kinda makes a huge difference tbh. But hey, when did draynor stat sigs become allowed? when i used mines instead of tip.it, it said it was too big. or is yours not the dynamic one that automatically updates?

technically, since the dds only used 25% of the spec bar, they get the same amount of hits. Put 2 guys same stats same everything, no armor, one have d claws the other dds, See who wins. I bet by the time Mr DDS is done with his final spec Mr Dclaw will already have spec'd twice and melee'd about 3 times if not already killed him. Dude i know and i'm not disputing that, just saying that 2 hits 25% of bar = 8 hits total with the whole bar, and 4 hits with 50% of bar = 8 hits with total bar. what i said was completely correct, because i said Nothing about how much they'd hit. :P

I so totally think you're right. I wish i had invested in them as soon as they came out...my friend bought 11 min price around midday the day they came out. I know the d claws spec is way better than the dds, plus it has a better str bonus. That kinda settles it. The only thing is when i wanna poison a monster that is hard to kill, else claws almost always win. Although, one could take both and use two dds specs to poison and 1 claws spec to get a good hit. Or just use all dds specs and wait for the spec bar to come back and use claws spec.

technically, since the dds only used 25% of the spec bar, they get the same amount of hits.

wow. i managed 26 the last time i went, and that was with terrorbird. They are insanely hard. Didnt notice there was a safespot, but next time, thats where ima be.

[hide=] [/hide] You forgot something...the keyword here is YET. First of all, you think you can measure how easy a quest cape is because of its MINIMUM exp? lets think about this some more...yes you can have those stats to get the cape, but wouldn't people want better combat stats to make it easier? and even if they didn't, it would only make it extremely hard, requiring more and more time to get the cape. I honestly applaud anyone with the skills you just mentioned and a quest cape. Honestly, i don't know how they'd get past...smoking kills even with those kind of stats...and a lot of money(most which wouldn't be made back) would be spent on normally unnecessary potions and food and such. Overall, the work needed would be MUCH more than most skill capes. and thats just for now, because see, no matter how you look at it, runescape is still coming out with more and more quests. Eventually, the amount of exp needed would be much more than any 1 skill cape, and with luck, maybe even any 2 skill capes. all that is needed is a little bit higher stats, and maybe a lvl 100 combat req for one quest. inevitably, the quest cape will out rise and eventually overcome ALL capes...with the exception of about 4, in wich case it would be tied with the rest. =P Thats why the "yet" was an important part that was missing.

As I've said, "Theists have much different, and often much more justified, reasons for believing in god than the Easter Bunny believers do for believing in the Easter Bunny." You've merely reiterated my argument and attempted to pass it off as a rebuttal. Then why try to compare the two (religion and easter bunny) if they are justified differently, one not having any justification at all. All religions have some form of justification, whatsoever it may be, so saying that because the easter bunny isn't real theism isn't true, is in fact false. The person who made the argument in the first place and compared the two like such, obviously meant to say that theism isn't true because belief in the bunny isn't true...but as i just stated, and even according to you, this can't possibly be true, and is a TERRIBLE example to try to make a point with.

He ignored you lol Anywho... Not quite. The wager is that he'd rather believe in one and have a chance of being wrong than believing in none and having no chance of being right. Nothing to do with fear or a "ticket to heaven" or whatever. Henceforth why it's called a wager (A wager, mind you, people take every day in different forms). So much anger. oh, kk kool. There really is a lot of unnecessary anger from and to both sides. I think its best if you state your reasons without the little angry/mean sidenotes. =)