Assume Nothing

Rapier has 6 bars in speed (same as whip), and Longsword has 5 bars. So i took 100 divided by 6 and got 16%, so Rapier is only 16% faster, not 25%. Did i calculate it wrong? And yes longsword can hit 0 damage too, but wouldn't +13 stab attack bonus and +19 strength bonus make up for the -16% speed? Do you understand something called 'Game ticks'? 2 ticks for throwing knives, 3 for shortbows, 4 for whip, 5 for longswords, 6 for godswords. Every game tick is 0.6 seconds. Do the math yourself

Oh no doubt in my mind that he could say something like that. :lol: I mean afterall when a monster has infinite slash and stab defense then you'll never hit with either a longsword or a rapier. So having the zeros flash up sooner with the rapier is a definite advantage. You can use a defender with CLS. Advantage is mute. Heretical idea? Definitely, since CLS must be used with shield is biblical law. So sayeth the tabulated data sheets which basis can not be questioned. I won't mention that CLS has a stab attack, I promise. :-# Why do you pretend to be smart when you aren't? Infinite defense, unless it really is infinite(which is not what grimy considered), does not mean you are not able to deal damage, just as it's possible to miss on a chicken with chaotic maul(~infinite attack vs. ~no defense). Against any numerical amount of defense, assuming that the stab/slash defense is equal, rapier will ALWAYS be better, and if you can't understand the maths behind it, don't make bold statements. I'm quite surprised to find you lacking in the logic department, too. I thought it was painfully obvious that all bonuses affect the faster weapon more than the slower one, but i guess i must have been wrong. That comment was incredibly stupid. Yes, the CLS has a stab attack, so what? Have you looked at the accuracy? 17 less than slash? Yeah, real useful. Using the CLS with a shield might not be a biblical law, but considering that the rapier is always better in a situation where you can use rune defender, it's next to useless to consider CLS without a shield. I'm waiting for the Golvellius reply to this. As stated many times here, it's not worth buying a chaotic weapon for only one purpose. My quote of the day

Aha! You finally admit it! I'd say go for rapier too, or Maul if you like

I don't do the calculations, ask Grimy Bunyip or bladewing

I'll copy pasta my post in Tech and Computers Are the computers that I linked 'good'?

Goonstalf 5553 halo2proman 4940 Abc1230 3980 Death7755 3931 Tylerelyt 3556 321Ownage 2623 AGreatMonk 1442 Pirate_Felix 1216 silver_wits 801 Cynic 721 Albel 550 acenator 482 Comical 451 M_Bison 447 Napalm_Death 362 darkecholog125 323 PoorLepRecon 316 dizzle229 279 Jaffy1 178 Hextriplet 143 Dax 123 Not_Trolling 123 Lol

Today I'm collecting my Laptop back. Edit - Wrong thread fail. Today I learnt how to break a computer. =/

[hide] I respectfully disagree. Let's have 2 players, Player A and B. Both have maxed melees, 75 slayer, and get tasks from Kuradal. Player A does not have the levels to use extremes, chaotics, or turmoil, nor does he have the desire to. He is also too frugal to use a cannon. He jumps right training slayer using a whip, with no potions or prayer to aid him. However, Player B spends 80 hours getting a rapier, 30 hours and 70m for 85 herblore and extremes, and 40 hours and 180m getting turmoil. Now player B is 150 hours behind player A in training slayer (at a 20k/hr rate for A that's 3m xp behind). He's also down 250m. He will, however be able to train 75% faster than player A with cannon, rapier, turmoil, and extremes at an additional cost of 1m/hr. He gets 35k slayer xp/hr. The 2 players train for an additional 200 hours. Now Player B has trained 7m slayer xp, which is equal to Player A at this point. So there you go, player B manages to catch up to Player A 63% of the way to 99 slayer. Yes, Player A is 450m richer than B at this point, but the utility of this extra money for him is nearly 0 because he is not spending it to benefit him in any way. And since t=350 hr is the critical point, past that the gp margin will shrink in favor of Player B. On an objective level, it is always better to get the best skills/gear as soon as you can, assuming you have long term goals. Subjectively speaking? Some people loathe dungeoneering and will never get a chaotic weapon. Others don't want to pay increased attention to pick up that cannon before it decays, drink that super antifire before it expires, flash turm+ss, etc. So if you train like Player A, that's fine and well and no one should disparage you for it. Haha no cannon or super pots or prayer (piety or 15% att and str)? thats a tad bit extreme. I fully agree those should be used whenever you can, however i think the jump from super to extreme pots, piety (or 15% att str/lower lvl curses) to turmoil, whip to Rapier just isnt worth the investment of time. Also the player in my previous examples makes 1mil an hour and is willing to spend it on slayer training (just in sub optimal gear). However lets follow your example, with one difference - both players are broke. They have all the necessary armor and weapons to slay but no money, they also have maxed melee and lvl 73 slayer (exactly 1mil xp). Player A (who is this guy scrooge or something? ;)) and player B. Player A being the stingy player he is (its rumored that he physically feels a burning sensation in his pants pocket whenever he spends any money) refuses to use cannons, even super pots, or prayer and he rushes off to get his new slayer cape. Player B on the other hand decides he wants to be a pro slayer, so he uses his 1mil an hour money making method for 250 hours and is 250mil richer. He spends 30 hours getting extremes, and 40 on turmoil. Then he runs off to get his rapier (poor guy cant rush properly so no pro group takes him) resulting in an 80 hour agonizing grind to get his rapier. Player B is 400 hours behind Player A (scrooge) (at 20k xp/h thats 8mil xp behind) however he is 75% faster then player A now ******I wont even factor in additional money making time needed for the hourly cost of his shiny new gear****** he has an xp rate of 35k per hour now. Both players continue training for 200 more hours. Player A (now has 4 million more xp then before, 1m+8m+4m = 13mil WOOO CAPE) and player B has (7mil xp more then before or 1m+7m = 8mil). Player A won the race but I would agree is in much worse shape then player B is. If players A and B had lvl 70 combat stats instead of lvl 99 player A could then use his newfound strength to do more efficient money makers, while player B's combat lvl would be far away from maxed out. [/hide] Terrible analogy. Why would you make 1m/h when you can make more? Edit - You didn't account for the fact that some people just last longer. More hours per day. So even if someone spends 500 hours, they may well beat someone who does 200

Its also nice for monsters with insanely high defense, as it hits 50%-150% of your max hit, if turm, ovls, slayer, etc... this is a guarenteed 286-860, with spec restores, you get it twice in a row, which may help the tiniest bit... Also, if your opponent doesnt have cureses, you can use leach special, and be able to spec again within the next 10-20 seconds? I don't think it's 50-150% of your max, as I've hit 50 and lower with the spec, but also 529. You just get a 50-150% bonus on a normal hit. There is two different special attacks, one for Multi Combat areas, and one for Single Combat areas. 50%-150% only applies to single.

What's wrong with Street price, exactly?

I beg to differ. I don't have any statistical links to back me up, but I know there has been surveys that have shown a correlation between income and sexuality/gender/ethnic origin. Like how skinny people average more money than Obese people, pretty sure it would apply to sexuality too if you're really open about it

I believe you would only think that you're thinking in fluent French, but actually thinking in gibberish that you perceive as French. Since the critical parts (the thinking parts) of the brain is usually shut down during sleep, I doubt you can actually recognize yourself speaking a language you don't actually know. How could you imagine a language you don't know? Your brain draws from your experiences, you couldn't magically know how to speak a language just because you were asleep. Why are you asking me? It's Serpent Eye that asked the question. I think you'd either use the bits that you picked up from experiences, or just perceive gibberish as whatever language you imagine yourself thinking in.

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you? And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana. I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee. And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format. Even that analogy is terrible. Mailing bombs is nothing like letting a house burn for not paying a protection fee. A better analogy would be something like Hospitals refusing to treat a patient because they don't have insurance, and letting the patient die. I think in that case, it's not morally justified that they should do that, because there is actually a risk of life in that case. Same applies to the burning house, someone could have gotten killed. To not save them, should be unlawful. I don't follow: you're drawing a parallel between law and morality. What makes human life sacred, while the destruction of animals and property can have a dollar value attached? (In this case, $75.) Believe it or not, morality and law is actually connected. This is the reason why different countries have different laws, because the different customs and communities would have different viewpoints of things considered 'taboo'. And I didn't say the destruction of property should have a dollar value attached. And Human life is sacred because we, as humans, are always going to want to improve the planet, and preserve our own species. We are technically the most intelligent beings on this planet, so I don't quite see what your point is. What does us being "technically the most intelligent" have to do with morality or law? Does morality dictate law, or law morality? It works both ways. Rape is considered taboo and wrong, so it's illegal. It being illegal plays a part in it being considered taboo. The loop doesn't break until society changes

I believe you would only think that you're thinking in fluent French, but actually thinking in gibberish that you perceive as French. Since the critical parts (the thinking parts) of the brain is usually shut down during sleep, I doubt you can actually recognize yourself speaking a language you don't actually know.

Its also nice for monsters with insanely high defense, as it hits 50%-150% of your max hit, if turm, ovls, slayer, etc... this is a guarenteed 286-860, with spec restores, you get it twice in a row, which may help the tiniest bit... Also, if your opponent doesnt have cureses, you can use leach special, and be able to spec again within the next 10-20 seconds? All's fine and well until you consider that you can't use Turmoil and Leeches at the same time

I'd guess Korasi's Sword has probably usurped that title now. Not really, considering Korasi Sword is basically a Dragon Scimitar with a decent special attack. Oh, and the special attack requires 60% of the special attack bar, which means you got to wait between specials, whereas Ags can have two specials in a row.

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient. I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though. Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem. It's the system of subsidies we have created for the industry: corn is grown, using huge quantities of petroleum, then transported, adding to the fuel costs, before being fed to cattle that still have a huge distance to travel. Methane, yes, is produced by cattle, but it's moronic to insist that's what we should work on "fixing": we've already wiped out millions of buffalo and other large animals, and the complexities of the greenhouse models can barely take into account the effects of albedo, let alone that of a natural environmental product that is cycled in and out of the environment in much smaller quantities from just as many sources, and with a large effect then Carbon dioxide, I remain a skeptic. (Sentence was too long, but I'm starting to feel the urge to do homework, so it shall remain as it is.) TO SUMMARIZE: the issue with consuming meat is not that of consuming meat, but of the idiotic systems we have created, including industrial feedlots, the treatment of manure as waste, excessive use of anti-biotics and the use of synthetic hormones, and the Wal-mart style supply chain. Do you think petroleum is efficient? The war, transportation, refinement, distribution, and inherent small-scale inefficiencies of internal combustion can hardly be dismissed out of hand. To the last part of your rant; No, I don't think Petroleum is efficient, but that's a different argument altogether. I think a major step to reducing global warming would be improving the efficiency of cars, with non coal produced electricity. This would fix some of the problem of meat being such a huge greenhouse gas emitter. I believe it should be a moral choice to eat meat or not, because most of the other factors, is the problems of the American Meat Industry, not ours. Hearing something that you don't like doesn't make it a rant. What special place do you live that is untouched by the industrial food system? I'm not kidding, I would love to live there. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html 49.5 percent from coal. What do you suggest we replace that with, how do you want to fund it, and why is petroleum superior to the 50% of power generated that is not from coal? About the efficiency of electric cars; That's a different debate altogether. And you're completely ignoring the fact that a large chunk of the other 50% will almost be as bad as coal. Where exactly did I say petroleum would be superior to whatever percentage of non coal produced electricity? Hmm? And did I really say that there is places untouched by the industrial food system? No. I didn't. However, poor practices within those industries can't really be blamed on us. Practices would be things like method of slaughter, living conditions of livestock, and other things that are related to the production of meat.

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you? And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana. I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee. And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format. Even that analogy is terrible. Mailing bombs is nothing like letting a house burn for not paying a protection fee. A better analogy would be something like Hospitals refusing to treat a patient because they don't have insurance, and letting the patient die. I think in that case, it's not morally justified that they should do that, because there is actually a risk of life in that case. Same applies to the burning house, someone could have gotten killed. To not save them, should be unlawful. I don't follow: you're drawing a parallel between law and morality. What makes human life sacred, while the destruction of animals and property can have a dollar value attached? (In this case, $75.) Believe it or not, morality and law is actually connected. This is the reason why different countries have different laws, because the different customs and communities would have different viewpoints of things considered 'taboo'. And I didn't say the destruction of property should have a dollar value attached. And Human life is sacred because we, as humans, are always going to want to improve the planet, and preserve our own species. We are technically the most intelligent beings on this planet, so I don't quite see what your point is.

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient. I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though. Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem. It's the system of subsidies we have created for the industry: corn is grown, using huge quantities of petroleum, then transported, adding to the fuel costs, before being fed to cattle that still have a huge distance to travel. Methane, yes, is produced by cattle, but it's moronic to insist that's what we should work on "fixing": we've already wiped out millions of buffalo and other large animals, and the complexities of the greenhouse models can barely take into account the effects of albedo, let alone that of a natural environmental product that is cycled in and out of the environment in much smaller quantities from just as many sources, and with a large effect then Carbon dioxide, I remain a skeptic. (Sentence was too long, but I'm starting to feel the urge to do homework, so it shall remain as it is.) TO SUMMARIZE: the issue with consuming meat is not that of consuming meat, but of the idiotic systems we have created, including industrial feedlots, the treatment of manure as waste, excessive use of anti-biotics and the use of synthetic hormones, and the Wal-mart style supply chain. Do you think petroleum is efficient? The war, transportation, refinement, distribution, and inherent small-scale inefficiencies of internal combustion can hardly be dismissed out of hand. To the last part of your rant; No, I don't think Petroleum is efficient, but that's a different argument altogether. I think a major step to reducing global warming would be improving the efficiency of cars, with non coal produced electricity. This would fix some of the problem of meat being such a huge greenhouse gas emitter. I believe it should be a moral choice to eat meat or not, because most of the other factors, is the problems of the American Meat Industry, not ours.

I think I can moonwalk. Is that a talent?

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you? And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana. I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee. And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format. Even that analogy is terrible. Mailing bombs is nothing like letting a house burn for not paying a protection fee. A better analogy would be something like Hospitals refusing to treat a patient because they don't have insurance, and letting the patient die. I think in that case, it's not morally justified that they should do that, because there is actually a risk of life in that case. Same applies to the burning house, someone could have gotten killed. To not save them, should be unlawful.

But Marijuana is a gateway drug. Another thing that annoys me; When I can't go to sleep at night because I like posting on Tif =/

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient. I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though. Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem.

I think it's pretty obvious. Bandos on guys, Armadyl for girls. Just 'cause

Personally, no. More widespread viewpoint; Lol, subjectivity. People can enjoy the skill if they want, but I don't