Hamtaro

Well, I really don't care what other countries think about the United States. They all stereotype us as fat/lazy/stupid and are generally ungrateful for the contributions the US has made to the world, so I have no reason to take their opinion of us seriously in the first place. On the note of invading countries, I can agree. We don't need to serve as police of the world, ironically forcing democracy on people. Yes, it was illegal (no UN approval and blatantly lying about the reason too), but I'm not so sure it was waged for the sake of war. Politics, absolutely, but simply for the sake of war seems a little... nonsensical... Basically, I agree with you.

It would be impractical to search one's car/house every day, without suspicion of illegal activity. The suspicion would stem form contact with other people, such as over the phone, or through email. Suspicion would initially stem from contacting already known terrorists/criminals. It inconveniences you in no way whatsoever for the government to wire tape you (that is unless something illegal is going on). They don't care who's dating whom or what girl you hooked up with last night, and they certainly don't broadcast it to the general public. I edited my post to fit what you had to say about the war in Iraq. Troops are still fighting there in order to assimilate the Iraqi troops into combat. The war itself, however, is over. And while Obama didn't directly end the war, he caused the pressure to do so (surprised he had the guts to do so). Good to see most of our troops coming home, regardless. Sure, we killed a few terrorists here and there in Iraq, but did we find any WMDs? No, we didn't. Our soldiers did a good job, but those in charge need to know when a war is finished.

Economic Left/Right: 1.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.79 Meh, my views are mixed. [spoiler=My views, if anyone cares. Don't hate if you disagree.]I come from a Catholic, Republican family (and I'm 16), but I don't like seeing issues as black and white (or rather blue and red). I hate the idea of a two-party system. Sure, you can vote for a third party, but that's basically wasting a vote. The last six elections, from my research, have been "lesser of two evils" decisions, it seems. I don't like the idea of public funding for rusted sculptures of God knows what (or as my township calls them, "art"). I'm against wasteful spending in general. My state loves to replace roads that are in good condition, in order to create "jobs." Guy holding the Stop/Slow sign on a temporary one-lane road, that texts all day? Awesome use of taxpayer money. Ever hear of multi-tasking? I support freedom of religion/separation of church and state. The only exception to this would be blatant hate-cults such as Westboro Baptist Church. If a father of a deceased soldier shot one of those idiots at a protest of his son's funeral, I can pretty much guarantee a non-guilty verdict. I support business in general (I'm probably biased, though, as that's the type of career I'm pursuing). I support Gay Marriage/their right to adopt. I support legalization of and heavy taxation of marijuana (as long as it can only be done on private property). I oppose abortion morally, but it can be acceptable in specific cases. I don't see a problem with government wire-tapping or whatever it was that was mentioned. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care. I would love to see the world at peace, but that won't happen for a long time. In the mean time, we need to defend ourselves (Afghanistan), not go on the offensive (Iraq). I don't see how long lines at the airport = "curbing our freedom in the name of counter-terrorism." I don't see a reason to have a natural distrust of political figures. If they're a general shady individual, or have a history of shadiness, then absolutely. Otherwise, give them a chance. I don't see why people who can afford their own health insurance should be forced onto a government run system, but I support free healthcare for those who legitimately need it. I support drug testing of welfare/unemployment recipients. I support laws keeping the environment protected, but not the ones that go over the top (such as every green law in the counter-progressive states of California and New York). I think the Midwest keeps a fair balance, whereas California/Northeast take it too far, and the South takes it as a joke. I think capital punishment should be optional (that is, the criminal has the choice) in all states. 100% undeniable (beyond a reasonable doubt) evidence should be required for the death penalty, though. The only instances where it should be mandatory, are for those who could still be threats to society. For instance, if Osama Bin Laden was in prison, what's going to stop his men from breaking him free? Sure, there will be a fortified defense, but innocent men shouldn't have to risk their lives to keep a mass murderer incarcerated. I'm against racism or the idea of one race being superior. I'm strongly against frivolous law suits where common sense would dictate that the individual filing suit is an idiot. YOU spilled coffee on yourself that you ordered to be HOT on your lap? You don't deserve X million dollars, you deserve to be called an idiot. You backed out of your garage, ran over your kid, and you're going to blame the car manufacturer for YOU not checking behind you? You deserve to be in a prison, not a mansion. I hate the "Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, almost all college professors, etc" crowd who tells morons how they should think. Nothing we can do about that, though. That about sums it up, I guess. Also, I didn't like Obama at first, but he hasn't done too bad of a job so far (probably about the same as Bush in his first term). He helped out the auto-industry, ended the war in Iraq (or at least cause the pressure to end it), and is promoting stronger relations with the UN and EU. Kind of glad he won now (probably didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, though). Imagine the possibility of Palin as President :ohnoes:.

When did that happen? I believe that Christmas 2007 is being referenced. I think it was an earlier one, they spawned little imps (the ones that were level 2), all dressed up in holiday items and some got stuck in between walls and behind banks or something. It was pretty cool Oh yeah. I remember back in F2P in December 2005, seeing Santa at the Taverly Gate and dressed up imps trapped in the wall there. Those were regular imps, just dressed up iirc. You had to loot them for the baubles.

When did that happen? I believe that Christmas 2007 is being referenced. No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgjT4ro1VUs It says that this begins on the 23rd, but I'm going to go inspect now. I'll update this with any information. Edit: No zombies... yet... Although there was a glitch releasing them too early along with the Halloween Event. Courtesy of RuneWiki: ^This is in the SAFE Portal at Clan Wars and not to be confused with the Demonic Ruins in the Wilderness.

What makes you think it's just f2pers wanting that reward? What makes you think they constantly want stuff all the time? What makes you think ALL of them would get membership or quit? Most importantly, what makes you think f2pers don't care about the reward? I myself love holiday events very much as they're a nice distraction from my daily activities. However, you saying that they will get mem or quit is very, very stereotypical and I would like you to not say something like that again. (I would really want members but unfortunately due to my location, I couldn't...) I could go on with my huge obsessive love for my fellow f2p friends, but that would require a whole different topic. F2pers have a limited choice of clothing to wear, and when I do make an appearance in F2P, everyone is wearing Random Event or Holiday Event Clothing (or rune). I never said F2Pers don't want the reward. In fact, I said they did. The only other individuals are the new generation of players who cries when someone has an item that they don't (Flagstaff of Festivities anyone?). Also, there's a basic pattern of players: 1. F2pers who quit a few months after they "beat" F2P. 2. F2pers who decided to get membership. 3. F2pers who think it's special to say "I'm the best f2per," so they stay F2P for their 15 minutes of fame (special case). 4. F2pers who want membership, but live in a country where that's difficult (special case). The majority fall under 1 and 2 (at least from my observations), so I think it's a safe "stereotype." Back in 2004-2005 when I was solely F2P, that's what all of my friends did. I have 0 friends from my F2p days that are still F2p or haven't quit. It's not a stereotype when it's true. I know you'll say that you know plenty of people who share your problem, but Jagex is slowly making their way around the world... Lastly, that was probably extremely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Recycled holiday rewards =/= hating F2P.

I'm fairly certain the first 3 recycled rewards didn't have a poll. Also, the concept for bone brooch was still added to the poll by Jagex when it was a clear copy of the Easter Ring. This is definitely a rant...

Reading the first sentence could have answered that.

Something that has been bothering me about the last few updates is that Jagex has been simply using old rewards with new skins due to demand of the players. Now keep in mind, since I've been around (March 2004), I've only missed one reward (Yo-Yo) and I haven't cried about it (nor the Scythe/Bunny Ears for that matter). Bunny Ears = Squirrel Ears Yo-Yo + Zombie Head = Eek Rubber Chicken = Easter Carrot Easter Ring = Bone Brooch Now, remember that demand of the players I mentioned earlier? Why would the players demand a reward that has already been introduced into the game? It seems as if a tone of jealousy clouds everything about the newer generation of RuneScape players. The same group demanded that the Flagstaff of Festivities be taken out of game because they couldn't afford to go to Runefest. The same group voted for a recycled version of the Easter Ring. They appear to only want what they know they can never have, and outside of F2P, most players never look at the rewards again. Should these individuals have prevented the majority of players from obtaining a potentially good reward because they were too lazy (to earn the money) to buy a Ring of Stone? Sure maybe some F2Pers wanted something. However, these players will either eventually obtain membership anyway or just quit, so why should that matter? These individuals seem to care about nothing more than the reward, as opposed to the event itself. As stated earlier, the vast majority of players won't even look at a holiday event reward again, so why not just make a new one? Laziness on Jagex's part, possibly. Currently, most of the holiday rewards only serve the purpose of showing how long one has been playing. We don't need copies of that. Instead of "punishing" those of us who have been playing the game longer than little Timmy, why not just make a new item altogether? Happy Easter 2006, everyone!

This. Probably making sure that his response will agree with what the DNC and his professors tell him to believe. On-Topic: On the issue of guns in the United States, if they were made illegal, criminals would still find ways to obtain them. This means that the only citizens with guns would be criminals, while we, the law abiding citizens, would have no means to defend ourselves from them. The only thing this would prevent would be a scenario such as "Kid X is bullied by kid Y. Kid X goes and grabs his dad's gun and shoots kid Y." I live near Detroit and these types of situations are rare even around here, so I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant. I would argue that outlawing guns in America would only lead to more crime. If totally outlawed, criminals would obtain them via Mexico and sell them for massive profits throughout the country. This would lead to something similar ot prohibition. In this case, criminals would know that a family living in that "fancy house down the street" would be defenseless from a break-in (with the exception of the police who take no fewer than 15 minutes to arrive). Because of this widespread gun problem that would happen, most likely, police would take longer to arrive. It would just turn into an expensive government program to find and destroy guns. Double the awful. However, I also believe better restrictions on guns should be in place (don't sell them to someone who just left prison, for example). It seems illogical that someone who already proved their willingness to break the law in the past should hold the ability to purchase a firearm. Obviously, laws such as that do exist, they're just not enforced... Now, you may sight Canada as an example as to why I'm wrong. Canada isn't bordered by a country virtually in anarchy at the moment. Also take into consideration that President Obama has already proved his apathy towards illegal immigration, meaning he would never support laws enforcing stronger border searches. While my family doesn't own any guns (nor do I plan on owning any), we do live in a fairly safe area. Those who actually need guns for safety (who live in dangerous areas), should have that ability. 1. US has a high murder rate: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita (3 times higher than the UK) US has a high firearm death rate, which is correlated with % gun ownership: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm 2. I'm sure you think that's due to the "anarchic" country on your southern border, or immigrants, or poor people in gangs, or something else. But I think its because of all the guns. 3. In the UK the criminals have guns, but they rarely use them or even carry them because the vast majority of criminals don't actually want to shoot anyone. They may have some remaining morals, they probably do not want to be tried for murder, and they certainly don't want the police to go after them (because murders are important enough to investigate). 4. As someone without a gun, you do have a way to "defend" yourself - you call the police (who are trained to use guns) and perhaps they eventually catch them. Leave it to the professionals. People see too many movies where random hot girls are given a gun by the hero, and they end up saving the day by shooting the bad guy. People think they could be the hero. 1. UK is knife crime capital As displayed in the article, if criminals don't have guns, they will find other weapons. In this instance, you may suggest simply banning knives. Well now you have a baseball bat/crow bar problem. Those get banned. Now you have a problem with some other weapon and it just goes on like that. 2. I don't blame immigrants for gun crime/murder. I mentioned Mexico because the government is at war with the drug cartels and losing. They have to focus the vast majority of their budget on said war and care very little about any smuggling into the United States. Similar to alcohol being smuggled into the U.S. during prohibition, guns would be smuggled in via Mexico. Criminals would pay top dollar for them and loot away. With an increase in crime, the likelihood of the police showing up within even an hour is unlikely. "Well just hire more police officers." I'm sorry, but we happen to be in a bit of a tight spot as it is here in Michigan. I don't think anyone here can afford any more taxes, especially unnecessary (in this case extra) ones. 3. Cool, but you're implying that hardened criminals (e.g. rapists/serial killers) have any morals. 4. Like I said, I live in a very low crime town (maybe 1 murder every 6 years?), so it would be absolutely unnecessary for my family to own any guns. Those that live, oh I don't know, in the city of Detroit (Detroit Police Response Time Criticized ) aren't so lucky...

Probably making sure that his response will agree with what the DNC and his professors tell him to believe. On-Topic: On the issue of guns in the United States, if they were made illegal, criminals would still find ways to obtain them. This means that the only citizens with guns would be criminals, while we, the law abiding citizens, would have no means to defend ourselves from them. The only thing this would prevent would be a scenario such as "Kid X is bullied by kid Y. Kid X goes and grabs his dad's gun and shoots kid Y." I live near Detroit and these types of situations are rare even around here, so I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant. I would argue that outlawing guns in America would only lead to more crime. If totally outlawed, criminals would obtain them via Mexico and sell them for massive profits throughout the country. This would lead to something similar ot prohibition. In this case, criminals would know that a family living in that "fancy house down the street" would be defenseless from a break-in (with the exception of the police who take no fewer than 15 minutes to arrive). Because of this widespread gun problem that would happen, most likely, police would take longer to arrive. It would just turn into an expensive government program to find and destroy guns. Double the awful. However, I also believe better restrictions on guns should be in place (don't sell them to someone who just left prison, for example). It seems illogical that someone who already proved their willingness to break the law in the past should hold the ability to purchase a firearm. Obviously, laws such as that do exist, they're just not enforced... Now, you may sight Canada as an example as to why I'm wrong. Canada isn't bordered by a country virtually in anarchy at the moment. Also take into consideration that President Obama has already proved his apathy towards illegal immigration, meaning he would never support laws enforcing stronger border searches. While my family doesn't own any guns (nor do I plan on owning any), we do live in a fairly safe area. Those who actually need guns for safety (who live in dangerous areas), should have that ability.

Fat moms, smoking, and C-sections due to public schools... what? Having an account on a forum and not know what the word "and" means... what? Not knowing that smoking causes birth defects isn't something that's supposed to be taught in the health class at school... what?

I agree with the title. We need free health care (like Canada). All emergency rooms should have 24 hour waits and all surgeries should have to be scheduled 6 months in advance. Also, I want to go to the doctor every time that I have a "tummy ache" or I stub my toe. :thumbup: Obama had enough trouble running Cash for Clunkers, so what makes you think he will do a better job handling a massive government project like health care? Also, isn't "family planning services" the most ironic name ever? I'd say so. "Poor access to prenatal care, maternal obesity and smoking, too-early cesarean sections and induced labour and fertility treatments are among the reasons for preterm births, experts said." I would argue that's due to the horrible public school system and the collapse of family values over the past 2-3 decades. "...every other country kicks our [bleep]ing ass in every rubric." High taxes, miserable people, more terrorist attacks, free everything for any bum too lazy to work (contrary to what you may believe, people DO abuse the welfare system more than it helps those in need [e.g. our [cabbage]ty union "workers" here in Michigan]), etc. I'm so jealous. I can see how tolerance may be a bit better in some European countries, but how many non-whites really live in Lithuania? Not very many I would bet, thus rendering any of those statistics redundant. So basically, nothing but public education. Clearly one thing is everything :rolleyes:. On the note of personal responsibility, since I can't manage my own money, I want the government to do it for me.[/sarcasm] Sounds a bit like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck telling hardcore rights how to think, eh? I don't know about the rest of the country, but in Michigan high school students, beginning with the graduating class of 2014, have to take a money management course (will be a joke, obviously, but may help some students). If you're really too stupid to manage your own money (wasting it on unnecessary things like iPhones, Macbooks, 42 inch plasma screen HD LCD TVs, Steelers tickets, etc), then why should you take other peoples' money (through the government)? I would support health care if it was limited to those who legitimately need it (better regulations, please). Unfortunately, the government wants to run our lives and force everyone to use that awful system. Tl;dr: Free health care won't change anything, except probably decrease the average life expectancy (e.g. 24 hour ER wait, 6 month surgery wait in Canada). Everyone in front of you at the ER will just be a raging drunk or meth addict, and you'll have been in a car accident. We'll see how much you support that system when that happens. One last thing... since, according to you, every country is better than America in everything, I'm sure Africa would love to have you as a citizen! I hear they have the highest life expectancy of all continents.

(1) Agree with you completely. (2) I've been studying theology for 11 years now (although the first seven years were essentially coloring pictures of saints and being tested on "God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is good"), so I feel I can discuss this. Testament means covenant, not law. While I won't get into all of the "cheesy" details, this simply means that God renewed his promise with his people (all people) in a second covenant (the first being given to Moses and the Jews). The only "rules" that Jesus affirms in the New Testament are the 10 Commandments; to love God with all one's mind, heart, and soul; and to love one another (while ignoring the Old Law as seen in [supposedly for you skeptics] performing miracles [working] on the Sabbath). While, true, we cannot tell what Jesus' stance would be, we can tell that he would be against the intolerance and abuse aimed at homosexuals.

Er, no. The Bible preaches tolerance (at least in the New Testament), but fundies can't read. As I've said before, I'm a Conservative Christian and I support equal rights for homosexuals. And yes, marriage is cultural, if you're talking about almost every culture that ever existed. That's like saying they shouldn't be able to bake a cake because food is cultural. Makes no sense as to why it's illegal. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it..." - Declaration of Independence [spoiler=Relevent Bible Verses]Old Testament: Leviticus- -Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.” -Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives” -Leviticus 10:6 “Moses said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, "Do not bare your heads or tear your garments, lest you bring not only death on yourselves but God's wrath also on the whole community. Your kinsmen, the rest of the house of Israel, shall mourn for those whom the LORD'S fire has smitten;” -Leviticus 19:27 “Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard.” -Leviticus 11:6-8 “…and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you.” -Leviticus 11:34 “Any solid food that was in contact with water, and any liquid that men drink, in any such vessel become unclean.” -Leviticus 19:19 “…do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread.” Picking and choosing what you believe from this book of the Bible, eh? -1 Kings 7:23 “The sea was then cast; it was made with a circular rim, and measured ten cubits across, five in height, and thirty in circumference.” -Now, the formula to find the circumference of a circle is 2πr OR dπ (with π being pi, r being the radius, and d being the diameter). Plugging in the numbers from above into 2πr, we get 2π5. 2*5=10, 10 = diameter. 10π is what we are left with. π≠3. Pi is a number that no one has found the exact decimals for. Generally, 3.14, not exactly 3 is accepted as proper rounding. This would make the circular rim ~31.4 cubits in circumference, not 30 (to prove the Bible can be wrong in some cases). -Deuteronomy 13:7-11 “If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the LORD, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.” Still a few billion late on this one I can see. New Testament: -John 13:34-35 "I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." -Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” -Galatians 2:21 “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.”

Way to deliberately find a bad screenshot of WoW. I don't understand why morons try to prove that Runescape has better graphics than WoW. It doesn't. And graphics don't even matter, just admit that Runescape has bad graphics and move on. Too bad I took that myself :thumbup: (in fact I have some old footage on private on my YouTube channel if you need further proof). Gameplay is infinitely more important than graphics, hence why I chose RS in the beginning. You could have graphics twice as good as Crisis, but in a boxed canyon and the game would suck. Regardless of this, RuneScape on maximum detail looks WAY more detailed (and therefore, imo, better). On top of this, WoW looks twice as cartoonish as your avatar. To put things into perspective, WoW has about N64 graphics (and that's VERY generous) and RuneScape is up to maybe Gamecube quality. Honestly, WoW is outclassed in every single aspect (if not, roughly equal). Wow, you can move around someone and hold a button or click a rotation of spells! That's like 9001x more difficult than inventory management pvp! And there's so much to do in WoW! There's like... COMBAT.... and pvp (combat) and, and, and arena (combat). Also the class system is so awesome, because if you choose something other than a paladin, you totally don't get wrecked. The quests are AMAZING too. Gathering those bear furs was the greatest storyline matched with the most challenging puzzle EVER. [/sarcasm] It's so funny to see Blizzard try to make content that's not the exact same thing from the patch before. OMG they added... MORE LEVELS, now I can be level 90... just like every single other person. You can claim WoW has better graphics all you want, but you're a little over two years behind on that statement having ANY truth. Just because your little guild mates say it's true doesn't make it true. I provided a clear comparison in my post, and you simply posted a screenshot with the EXACT same quality as the WoW half-screenshot I posted. WoW's graphics look like they were thrown together in MS paint by a 12 year old with ADHD in about 15 minutes. That's some pro [cabbage] right there. CLEARLY better than RuneScape's graphics :rolleyes: . Sure, I may be slightly biased, but at least I provided clear examples unlike you simply making a smug remark under the impression that you know so much more than everyone else. Sorry to break it to you, but being elitist doesn't prove anything you say. inb4 one line, elitist response ^Called it lmao. Also, good job ignoring 75% of my post, you sure showed me :rolleyes:. Learn what an opinion is an get back to me, you senselessly arrogant ignoramus. Tl;dr: It's so sad to see a browser based Java game beat a high budget downloadable MMO. Edit:

Ah, found a picture from my days on the WoW demo (approximately 2 years ago to date): WoW sure has "great" graphics :rolleyes:

Use a Death Altar Tab from Great Orb Project instead of going through the entire Underground Pass. It may save you a lot of time.

They sent me some wristband when I ordered the book, so it will probably be something small like that (maybe a keychain or a pen).

The book was fantastic. I highly recommend it for those interested in the storyline of RuneScape or its lore. Now's a good time to get it if money was an issue before.

I don't farm that often. When I do, it's only for a week or so and only ranarrs/avantoe/toadflax which almost never die for me (seriously like 1/20 average). I would place a higher priority on herbicide/bonecrusher for that reason. I use skiller/gatherer on my ring, so spear would be better for me. Again, efficiency isn't all that important to me. I'm looking for little improvements to make the dungeons more bearable/easier as opposed to doing everything as fast as possible.

My brother and I exclusively train Dungeoneering together. We duo rush smalls from 1-25, then fully complete mediums from 26-last possible. Both of us hate playing with strangers who ragequit or have other annoying habits. Please don't suggest 5:5 larges or anything like that, we aren't efficiency-obsessed players. We both have 71 (no tears/peng points/lamps/etc used) and are looking to obtain the unique rewards. My binds+stats: Prom spear P+, prom plate His binds+stats: Gorg rapier, hood I serve as a skiller-tank and he serves as my "side kick" in combat and as a "chef." The Questions: Reminder- Neither of us care about maximum efficiency. 1. For duoing with eachother ONLY (never going to play with someone who isn't on our lists), are our binds acceptable choices? I intentionally don't have hood (but rather plate) so I can tank for his low defense. 2. Do all monsters on the same "floor type" (e.g. Frozen or Occult) share a weakness (e.g. stab/slash/crush), or does it vary by monster type? For instance, shades appear on multiple floors. 3. I have the Gem Bag and Anti-Poison Totem so far. I NEVER use combat magic, so I have no use for the necklace. I also don't want to pay 200k/hr to use a weapon, so I don't want any chaotic. I am approaching 34k tokens and I was wondering if I should get Herbicide or Bone Crusher first (followed by Coal Bag and Scroll of Life). Which of the two would be BEST for casual slaying and monster hunting? 4. We have not tried out any of the new floors yet. So far I have been able to solo every single boss at least once, and I haven't died in a dungeon since April. Is there anything on the new floors (puzzles, bosses, etc) that we should know before starting them tonight? 5. When are the only instances that we should make potions within Daemonheim? 6. Are there any specific levels that you recommend that I obtain before returning to Daemonheim? 7. Are there any other methods we may not be familiar with that we can use to improve our tactics without employing another individual (or just any other general advice)?

Cheap, fun, simple, UNIQUE, relaxing, solid community (not referring to the general population, but specific groups of people), regular updates, and because it's impossible to run out of things to do (creative gameplay, over 100 quests, 25 skills, tons of activities, etc). I bet someone will come on the thread and say how RS should basically be a carbon copy of every other MMO. I played WoW and it was literally the single worst game I have ever played. Then I tried Guild Wars, basically the same exact game (with some obvious differences). As far as I'm concerned there is RuneScape and the other (yes, singular) MMO, and frankly, RuneScape outclasses it in everything but graphics (gameplay is more important than graphics anyway). I don't mean to bash other games, but RuneScape really is a lot better. Edit: Called it :rolleyes:

I'm satisfied with my team. I went through and checked and I'll be screwed in week 7 with most of my players on Byes because of a too-small bench. Oh well, the only player that I really wanted that I didn't get was San Diego's kicker, but no complaints here.