perfetc

It's just your own opinion that quests suck. But yes, it could be a mix of both, but DEFINITELY have some qp requirement, otherwise people will just bot. He never said quests suck. He just said that their are player's who don't like quests- not an opinion. I don't know why you're so adamant about having QP as a requirement... unless, maybe, it's because that's what Jagex has it as? Read the last 11 words. :wall:

They were rhetorical.

Forgive me if i have no idea what your on about. Basically, i see no disadvantage for the trade limit to be based off total XP. Prehaps less for skills like cooking, etc, but it seems better than QP. I've said it once, and I'll say it again - SKILLS ARE NOT anti-bot. Quests are. Enough said. BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER. IF YOU BOT, THEN YOUR NOT GOING TO RWT WHEN YOU CAN JUST BOT YOUR MONEY. NO PEOPLE USING BOTS MIGHT STILL WANT TO ABUSE THEIR "POWER" BY TRADING LARGE AMOUNTS OF $$$ TO THEIR FRIENDS, GIVING THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. SO THERE. Two questions. 1) what has this little bot argument have to do with the title of this thread? 2) WHY IS EVERYTHING IN CAPS?

yeah, who needs to be accurate? :roll: These days it seems everybody wants to hit higher than the next person, so everything that increases it is always higher than anything else, were as if you increase attack you can probably dish out the same amount of damage for alot less money. Str is very over rated and since people who love str will have there str level above there att level while wearing 30+ mil in stuff to increase there str they wont be very accurate so I bet it is quicker to kill monsters with a high att than str. Probably quciker still if you have a very high att with a low str then increase your str with items or the other way round.

How about save some time and use Ring of Life. It can and does save peoples lives. Hell... Saved mine more than once and tasks where i wander off or get something to drink. Because most of us don't die easily at any slayer task. TBH, if you're going to spend 30+ hours to get the rings, get onxy for most things, but get a zerker as well, and use that for tasks with low defense, such as dusties. Why onyx? dragonstone is a hell of a lot cheaper and is only 1 less on everything than the onyx ring and no body can notice that difference.

none, get the dragonstone ring imbued, it is only 1 less on everything than onyx but it is a fraction of the price. It is the obvious choice for me.

:o How have we gone this long without the uber life sword! If it's an especially long skill to train (it better be), it should be called the uber (no) life sword. I was being sarcastic, ya know.

:o How have we gone this long without the uber life sword!

Why were you asking for 75k though, even if they had agreed to 75k they couldn't have bought it. :?

:wall: Will one of you be the bigger person and just walk away from it instead of this persistant name calling, it is like watching two 3 year olds, it is quite pathetic and totaly off topic.

Which is why I said take it to off topic.

I know this is just adding to the already high pile of spam but if you want to argue about who is or isn't in love with jagex (or any other petty argument) why don't you head on over to off topic and create a thread called "Me_Hate_Libs VS quelmotz"?

Yeah, every single post on every thread ..... Can I help it if he made so many obvious mistakes? people point out mistakes all the time and nothing gets said, I guess I am special. : Which isn't a typo. On topic however: There are some types of bamboo that grow 4 foot a day and for torture people are made to sit on them.

If you can't afford the obby cape by the time you have finished legends quest, your playing the wrong game. (I use "you" as a general term, not you as an individual). Obby cape has better stats and doesn't cost millions, so why would any body pick legends cape over obby cape? Other than vanity of course. People pick zerker ring over warrior ring even though zerker is 10 times as much and they do exactly the same thing just to different skills.

Reduce the window size, if your using paint, unselect everything (click the box tool and just left click once, for example) then go to the very bottom right and you should see a little blue box left click and drag till you got the right size. Hope that helps.

your sat on a chair while supporting yourself on your toes which are bent up? How is acid on your nerves? If your sat on a chair how do you fall? Why pressure pads? It is painful to know your wieght or something? You don't saw with a scalpel. It would take bigger holes than "slits" to get your lungs out in 1 go. You can't breathe without lungs, from what I remember from biology, your diaphram moves creating a vacuum in your lungs which draws in air due to atmospheric pressure being greater than in your lungs, so without lungs the air would escape through the "slits", without you having to anything, you would be like a colender. How can you smell if you can't draw air in through your nose? Even if you could smell at that time you would feel the pain instantly. Burnt flesh isn't sweet or smell of walnut. Unless this is happening really quickly, you would have died from lose by now, you even said "You feel physically drained as the blood seeps from your back" Were on a trap door now? Were did the chair and pressure pads go? Lastly .... You have no lungs yet your expected to drown? Atleast you didn't say starve to death. :lol: Did I ruin it? Sorry.

I know a girl who lives in a massive house, she has a road named after her, her first car was a high spec ford focus with the most expensive pain job, her mum and dad do everything for her etc etc etc yet she bangs on about how hard life is and nothing ever goes her way and she wants to run away/kill her self cos it is "oh so hard" to be her. I know more people like that aswell, some people are just like that. Another example is people moaning over seeing or hearing something mildly offencive on tv and kicking up a massive fuss over it when there are people who havn't even got clean water to drink and they don't bat an eye lid to it.

Uh, sorry for having an active interest in mathematics and reading through valid proofs of the various arguments proposed by Georg Cantor and only getting the material I used there from Wikipedia because I was on a time constraint and I knew the majority of people here couldn't care less about cardinality? FYI, it's not copy-pasted and I understand every word, thanks: I followed the structure because, as I said above, most people here couldn't give two [cabbage] about the stuff and I was on a time constraint. Hell, I tried to make the material as informal as possible so people could easily understand it without Googling away for the next three hours. Whatever; all I was trying to do was shed some light on an interesting topic. I am only 1 person and I usually find really boring things interesting but that could put me to sleep, I would find it hard to belive any body is interested in the intimate details of infinite, it will never help you in life and since you have less than 35 years in total to live it, I consider it a waste of time and totaly irrelevant to the thread. The gods of runescape probably have the ourobouros symbol as there level but defining infinite is off topic. How about instead of infinite we just say unlimited.

It's not all about the mistakes. I forgive mistakes. I personally take issue with the way the game is being run and developed. That isn't a mistake. it's a difference of opinion. So don't play it, it probably won't change, so all you will do is carry on complaining without doing anything to resolve it or stop playing there game.

There are no instances of, "Well, it means this to me!" here: these are facts. Look at it this way (yes, I'm going to lift the argument pretty much verbatim from Wikipedia). In mathematics there exists a construct known as a set, and a whole branch of mathematics has evolved around this construct: set theory. A set is a simple thing, really: it's just a collection of objects. For example, {1,2,3} is a set, as is {6,15,415,3.1415926} or {x,y,z}. It seems intuitively obvious that each set has a size: for example, the first and last sets above have three elements, and the second has four. The set {4,7,2,6,2} has five and {} has none.. The size of a set is called its cardinality. Now, think about the natural numbers (the positive integers 1, 2, 3, ...). Can these be expressed in a set? Sure they can: {1, 2, 3, ...}. It's immediately obvious that we cannot list all of the natural numbers and have to condense them as shown: there are infinitely many! For a set with infinitely many elements, does it make sense to talk about its cardinality? The answer is yes. However, we need to extend our number systems to cope with this and this formed the cardinal numbers. The smallest cardinal number is , 'Aleph-null'. is the cardinality of set of natural numbers. Now, think about the real numbers. How many real numbers are there? You might say, "If the cardinality of the natural numbers is and the set of real numbers is infinite too, then there must be real numbers!", but you would be wrong. For each real number, there is an infinite decimal expansion. For example: 1/3 = 0.3333333333... Pi = 3.1415926... 1/2 = 0.5000000000... The digits of the expansion are in a one to one correspondence with the natural numbers: each digit describes one and only one natural number, and that natural number describes that digit only. We know that the cardinality of the natural numbers is , so each expansion has digits. This is true regardless of the mathematical base used, and the argument is simplest in base 2: binary. Each digit of the expansion must be a 0 or a 1, and there are digits. This means that there 2^ ways to fill the expansion. This number is aleph-1. It can be proved that < aleph-1, but I'm running short on time -- look it up yourself if you're interested. The point is that while there are infinitely many real numbers and infinitely many natural numbers, there are 'more' real numbers than there are natural numbers. You can count forever between 1 and 2, but you will never cover all numbers in between them. I read the first paragraph and thought, "I am not going to read any of this" and if this is really important to you then I think you better not come on the internet for sometime. All you have done is go onto a website made by people who could be a bunch of 12 year olds making stuff up or by highly intelligent people, although intelligent people probably have better things to do than edit some website. Seriously, do you even understand what you have just copy and pasted from wiki? Or did you just read it trying desperately to make sense of it, in the end not getting the vast majority of it but thought "this will make me sound clever" so you highlighted everything and pasted it here, with your own little sentence at the start and hit submit? Cos I bet it was the second. I am not trying to sound nasty, try and put some your own thoughts into it.

So they dont release it you "riot", They release it a number of years later and you tell them to "gf". They can't win. I am not 100% sure when rs2 was released but say it was released in 2000 it has almost been a decade since that was said! People can change there mind. RS2 was released in 2003, but that is beside the point. I wasn't trying to call out Jagex, simply to demonstrate a trend of features that were once established solely as the domain of members are slowly but surely headed in the f2p direction. That will always be the case though, they will say it will never be f2p then when members have got bored of it and hardley any body uses it any more then it might become f2p. I don't see the point of keeping something for members cos it has always been a members thing, when no body really cares about it.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Yes, , but . The numbers are different depending on whether x increases towards 0 or decreases towards 0; the limit is not equal on both sides. Sure, you could go ahead and create an 'unsigned' infinity and use the real projective line, but since this isn't a field division doesn't even keep the meaning that you're probably familiar with in it. (forgive the dodgy Latex; it's the first thing Google spat out) What perfec doesn't understand is, that infinite isn't necessarily such a large number. For example, between 0 to 1, there are infinite numbers. In addition, between 1 and 2 there are also infinit numbers. Now, even though infinite, you must agree that the infinity between 0 to 1 isn't as big as the infinity between 0 to 3, not to mention 0 to say... 1M. In conclusion, although infinite cannot be measured, there are sizes to it, and you can't say that 0 is bigger than 3, 64, or 1,000 only because it's infinite. I am not going into the intimate details of infinite but from my understanding of it is never ending, so your saying there is a never ending list of numbers between 0 and 1? :shame: There might be googolplexian or more numbers between them but you would eventually get to 1. I think of it like and FPS, if you have infinite ammo, there isn't an enormous amount of it, there is no limit. [/hide] Of course there are infinite numbers between 1 and 0. You can add as many numbers after the dot, and will still not get 1, as long as before the dot there is a 0. examples: 0.1 0.000000000000000000000000000006 0.1567863542135498756423545778995461 0.09 0.0000000000000000000500000000000000000000000000000001 These are not even close to the length these numbers can get to. Haven't you ever been to school? It's pretty much basic stuff... Do you not know what googolplexian is? cos I pretty much said exactly what you just said except, I think that if you counted these numbers for millennia then you would eventually get to 1 from 0, which to me means it isn't infinite.

So they dont release it you "riot", They release it a number of years later and you tell them to "gf". They can't win. I am not 100% sure when rs2 was released but say it was released in 2000 it has almost been a decade since that was said! People can change there mind.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Yes, , but . The numbers are different depending on whether x increases towards 0 or decreases towards 0; the limit is not equal on both sides. Sure, you could go ahead and create an 'unsigned' infinity and use the real projective line, but since this isn't a field division doesn't even keep the meaning that you're probably familiar with in it. (forgive the dodgy Latex; it's the first thing Google spat out) What perfec doesn't understand is, that infinite isn't necessarily such a large number. For example, between 0 to 1, there are infinite numbers. In addition, between 1 and 2 there are also infinit numbers. Now, even though infinite, you must agree that the infinity between 0 to 1 isn't as big as the infinity between 0 to 3, not to mention 0 to say... 1M. In conclusion, although infinite cannot be measured, there are sizes to it, and you can't say that 0 is bigger than 3, 64, or 1,000 only because it's infinite. I am not going into the intimate details of infinite but from my understanding of it is never ending, so your saying there is a never ending list of numbers between 0 and 1? :shame: There might be googolplexian or more numbers between them but you would eventually get to 1. I think of it like and FPS, if you have infinite ammo, there isn't an enormous amount of it, there is no limit.

Please, try to be original. Over 9017. Now THAT's original. no, that's stupid. theres a difference Saying 90210 would be better than 9017