Jonanananas

Right. Ignoring the "Can revs be as dangerous as PK'ers" debate for a second, and assume that there are Revenants just as dangerous as PK'ers. What's stopping the Revs from griefing people instead of PK'ers? A revenant is a piece of code. It can by definition not grief you, as a part of griefing is the malicious intent, the will to ruin the fun of others. That's the difference. You just said exactly why revenants can never be as dangerous as pkers. The spirit wolf special move. The only reason why someone would want revs instead of pkers is because they want it easier than it should be. The 'griefing is pking' attitude is absolutely ridiculous. Only if you're talking about revenants with somewhat similar levels. Up their stats and abilities, bam they're more dangerous. The only time when I tried the spirit wolf move(while agility training I think) it didn't work for the 20 or so times that I tried it. If it bothers you that much, Jagex can disable it, no big deal. And no, wanting it to be easier is not the only possible reason why someone would want non-pvp worlds. If you don't agree with me fine - but claiming that my viewpoint doesn't exist and that I'm just a little crybaby whining about dying is ignorant. And yes, griefing can be PKing. I don't see why that shouldn't be possible.

Yes I did go in the wilderness quite often before the reintroduction of PvP. I liked revenant hunting and I liked herding penguins there. Revenants weren't as dangerous as PKers, but they can easily be made as dangerous. Not as complex, not as flexible, that sure is true. A rev with the same levels as a PKer would obviously stand no chance against him. But you can just up those stats, give him some extra abilities(Able to run, longer freezes, whatever) Remember that you wouldn't be thinking about someone with full gear, max stats and years of experience when you talk about the average PKer you will encounter. Especially considering that those who fall into this category will most likely not spend their time running after some random players but rather will engage in higher risk PvP fights. And the point of making Revenants as dangerous as Pkers? So non-PvP worlds can be introduced for those who have no interest in being griefed while keeping the danger level on the same scale, seeing as this apparently is what everyone is so concerned about when suggesting non-PvP worlds.

I wouldn't say most of the guys with long hair don't take care of it properly. More like 50/50 maybe. To be entirely honest, not sure where I would count myself in - I wash it every day in the morning(unless I oversleep) and comb it somewhat regularly, but don't do much besides that. I personally prefer it over short hair and think it looks better, which is why I put up with the impracticability and the increased need for care. What was mentioned, that guys, unlike girls, usually wouldn't get advice on how to treat their hair probably plays a large role.

The internet has very small reference pools and a love of Guy Fawkes masks? :razz: "Can" doesn't mean "Will". I'm waiting to see what they do with it, not what an army of Stalin clones could do with it. Shouldn't a law prevent abuse though? If you say "until they abuse it, it's ok", that would leave the door wide open for a lot of horrifying stuff. I'm not living in the US so maybe I'm not quite in the same situation, but I find this to be shocking. A law that severely cuts down on human rights in this way shouldn't be able to pass in a western country(Well it shouldn't pass anywhere, but here you wouldn't expect it at least). Total observation of suspects could be justified with the same arguments a.ka "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" Again, I'm not affected directly...but personally I hope this law is deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

Did you like the fifth one? I found it somewhat lacking compared to the first four which were really great.

If they were to make 1 world like it was pre-FT/W reintroductions, it would skew risk-reward drastically. Essentially, you would be walking in a space of nothingness because everyone would want the easy-to-kill revenants meaning there would be literally no danger for you guys. You might as well ask for an empty wilderness for all the sense that makes. If you assume that revenants cannot be made roughly as dangerous as the PKers you encounter. I don't see why that shouldn't be possible, but maybe you can explain it in a way that I understand it. Ginger_warrior tried to but that didn't really convince me...

Yeah, this was the concept art shown at Runefest when Mod Mark talked about the new bounty hunter game. The essence of it was that someone would get an incredibly powerful weapon, but everyone would be against him to get the weapon for themselves. Eventually he'll get slain, someone else will get the weapon and it will go on like that.

I can understand you don't see the need for it, and I won't be claiming that I'm in the majority nor that Jagex has to do that. But what exactly (If you leave the amount of time Jagex would have to spend on coding this) would bother you about non-PvP worlds? No matter what, I cannot think of anything that would trouble anyone except griefers. You yourself consider them douchebags, so why in particular don't you like the idea(Or rather, why aren't you indifferent about it)?

Reading 1984 atm - about halfway through. It's a good book....but really depressing and shocking. Often more than some of the stuff like Stephen King that I've read. I'm not sure if I am able to say that I "like" this book....

PKers might get their last edge out of using tactical approach and they will always win against a monster with the same traits. But a pker that has low stats isn't dangerous, the same as an incredibly stupid monster with high stats IS dangerous. And I don't agree that PvP is so rapidly changing that they will be obsolete soon. In essence, there's not so much that has changed about runescpaes combat system. In the end, you're still whacking each others with weapons and hope for a high hit. Skill matters a lot with PKing, sure, but the max hits and defence bonuses you can get with your equipment still matters more. Also...I'm not! tagging all PKers as griefers. Griefers are those hanging out for example on 60 and going after penguin hunters. They know they won't be getting much loot, they know they will likely not get an interesting enemy. They're there to ruin other people's fun because they like it, and that's what a griefer is. As for "my fun is more important than theirs!"....well, I differentiate here. If "they" are PKers, then no. if "they" are griefers, then yes. I don't think griefers should be catered to or welcomed in any game. I find it to be quite disgusting really. That's probably why I hate being killed by one of those guys so much.

I also am one usually rather on the edge of my bankspace(I have maybe 80 free spaces after the update now) but again...I like to keep a lot of stuff. I want to get around quickly, so I have EVERY kind of teleport in my bank. I like to keep quest items just in case they will be needed in future quests. I like to keep all kinds of stuff for skill training. If it was needed, I could easily clear 100 spaces more without really impacting my gameplay and after that another 50 or so that would only somewhat affect my gameplay. It's alright to have your bank full - but there isn't really any need to clamor for bankspace...especially if you know how much memory it costs.

Of course they can be made as dangerous as PKers. Saying that it's not possible is just wrong. To make an extreme example, give them a max hit of 2000, and we'll see how someone fares against that. Of course a Rev will never be able of metagaming....but he doesn't have to. He can still be dangerous without that. It is possible to make them as dangerous, the bigger issue would be balancing. Besides...those PKers you would meet alone, going after individuals who seem a lot weaker than they are, won't be wearing top-notch gear, nor will they exactly be the best of PKers around. Imagine a revenant that is capable of running, has more lifepoints, maybe double or 1.5 of the old max hit. He still has his freezing and teleblocking abilities. Why exactly would that not be as dangerous as some random player? I should also mention that, unless you are on w60, where you might run into some griefers, or on one of the popular PKing worlds...the chance of even encountering a PKer is slim. Revenants would be a step up here.... Removal of penguins would be an option...but it has some disadvantages to it, one being that some enjoy it like it is, in a PvP area, plus finding another area with a somewhat similar danger would be preferable, which will be kind of difficult I guess. As on 3...it's not an argument. It's how I feel, and I know some others that feel similar. If that's the case, the situation is suboptimal. Sure, that doesn't mean that another option HAS to be better. But it's something that should be looked at and rectified if it's possible and doesn't take too much time.

If you want to do them but you don't like the wilderness, then you clearly don't want to do them enough. I don't like pking, I don't like pkers. Yet you don't see me shying away from dangerous activities because the risk is outweighed by the reward. So hopefully you'll understand why I say that complaining about it holds no weight when there's still ways to do some things--or if there isn't, there is compensated reward to make up for the risk. It's a load of rubbish. If the danger:reward proportions aren't balanced, then the solution to that is to buff up the rewards, not remove the danger. I think almost all RuneScape players would like to see more risk for greater reward, rather than play a game with zero danger. 99 cooking doesn't really get the adrenaline pumping as much as entering the Wilderness does, end of. I also don't understand where this axiom of Peng Hunting > PKing has come from. Why does your 'right' to do penguin hunting outweigh a PKer's 'right' to kill players in their own backyard? Well, you don't seem to see the issue that I have with it..but that's okay since not that many people see it >.> First of all, for me it's not about the danger or dying. It's the fact that being killed by a player who's just there to ruin your fun is an entirely different thing for me than being killed by a monster. I still do the wilderness penguins, because for me they're more than just a bunch of xp - I want to have all of them spied, I also want to help herding and that means I'll have to put up with it I guess. I just wish there was an option not having to put up with it though - like some non PvP worlds. Revs can be made more dangerous, there could be no graves etc. They can easily be made as dangerous as the pkers you encounter will be. Besides, since you're not risking items while penguin hunting anyway, it doesn't even matter that much. I just know that I thoroughly enjoyed wilderness penguins before the change, a lot more than stupid sawmill or dragontooth or whatever. After the change, I don't anymore. I also never implied that penguin hunting should rank over PKing. I don't want to take away PKing - I'd just like a possibility to enjoy my activity how I like it and how it's been for the past years - without PvP. I can't find any consideration for griefers in my heart though and I don't think that their playstyle should be catered to, as I, from a personal standpoint, find it disgusting, but I guess there are no big chances for that as large parts of the wilderness is just about that playstyle and not what I would consider honest PvP.

you can use your hatchet and it's so hard for them to get these little things right because there are so many of them. Think about all the cases when you use a knife...now when introducing such a thing as the toolbelt, you have to look through years of code. It's impossible to find everything.

It wouldn't be a rational argument if we used that particular incident as a reason that guns must be banned. But nobody thus far has done that. It just brings up the topic again. It's the same as arguing against nuclear power after Fukushima. The accident itself shouldn't be the argument - but it brings up the topic again.

I don't see the logic at all in wasting bankspace for coins now. The pouch is 100% safe, no lose on death and bank pin protected. I will use it in two weeks or so...when I can be sure that there's no weird bug with it in some way.

Whether gun laws help depends on the situation. Against crimes like robbery, long-planned murder etc. they won't help. Even with gun laws, you're getting your gun somewhere. If you want one, you'll get one, no matter how restrictive the laws are. However...gun laws can help with crimes that happen out of affect. Say, an argument between a couple that gets out of hand. If you have a gun lying nearby and one of them gets his hand on it, the chances that he'll be able to kill the other partner are far higher than if he's limited to a knife or something. The point that culture plays a role is very important too - I've read an article some time ago, comparing the USA and Canada, who have somewhat similar gun laws, yet the gun-connected crime rate is far lower than in the US. I don't have any real statistics on this though, and not sure where i read it. Too lazy to look for it.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't have to go into the wilderness to do either of those things. The chaos tunnels have a non-wilderness access point as well as not having to obtain the wilderness penguins. Almost all activities that have you go out in the wilderness have a buffed reward to go along with it. The only exception would be clue scrolls, and that's only because of how old that content is and market trends. You're acting as if the pkers have penned you in and you can't play your game anymore. Chopping a tree? NOPE THERE'S A PKER. Doing a quest? NOPE THERE'S A PKER. Playing Stealing Creation? NOPE THERE'S A PKER. Except...that never happens. Ever. So really, there's not a lot of weight to your complaints. At all. :/ Not everyone likes PKing though, regardless of how dangerous it is. And if you want to get all your pengs, you do have to go there. Same if you want to rev hunt - again you have to go to a PvP area. It's kinda annoying that there are activities that aren't related to PvP yet require you to go there if you want to do them.

Are there any pictures of the Ring of stone recoulour? I'm interested in it, but don't wanna waste 4k points in case it looks stupid...

I actually really like that idea! The issue is probably technical though - back when citadels were released, the reason given in the FAQ why they were not partly F2P was that Jagex said they could only make it fully F2p or fully P2P, everything else wouldn't be possible for them. This idea sounds like a bigger engine rewrite, and engine writers' time is always precious. But if it's possible to do, I think it could be a great addition. I hate trolling and intentionally being rude, but this is one of the worst Ideas I have ever heard. If we remember when Mark Gerhard first became the CEO, one of his first posts was regarding his plans and treatment for the F2P "version" of the game. He didn't beat around the bush- he clearly stated that he was going to remove the P2P advertisements from the F2P game. This announcement was probably my happiest RuneScape playing moment. Jagex was ackowledgeing that F2P was its own game, and Gerhard stated that too. (Do not comment and say I'm a tax on them and don't pay my way. Charts have shown Jagex's revenue from ads being in the millions of USD. In addition, I usually have a P2P account) By going against this, or rather, their inconsistency, they are continually pushing me to other MMOs and certainly other people to the same ends (or Console games ofc). I suppose I would be fine with this update if Jagex posts an update on the front page taking back their statement and promising to consistently advertise P2P in F2P. As I've said, I want consistency. I'll even add membership back to my classic account (which I play on maybe 5hours a month) to show my support for the company. P.S. I think the F2P areas will be far more crowded than we are crediting, especially if they remove an additional 50 servers (which is a guarantee with this style of update). First of all, they're not inconsistent. They did say their stance has changed - they still think F2P is a game of it's own, but they no longer believe in having absolutely no marketing there. They have decided that they need marketing stuff in order for this game to survive. Now, how exactly a merging of F2P/P2P worlds will look like is a design question, but as long as it doesn't harm F2P in it's gameplay, I don't see the problem with it. When I was F2P, I still saw all the pickpocket options etc. - and while they were bothering me at times, they never really made my gameplay worse.

Do you "power" to 99? Definitely not. My first (and currently only) 99 I got for an event for the celebration of 100 weeks of Penguins. I had about 1 and a half months I think to train thieving and I really enjoyed it. In fact, I'll probably go back to some more Pyramid plunder...but I'd want to get 75 rc for the sceptre of the gods :/ Since then, only once have I thought about getting a 99, in this case magic. Again for an event, Runefest :P. I stopped at 96 because what I really wanted(spellbook swap) I did have, and I was bored with training. I normally don't train my skills very much, just occasionally for a quest or if I feel like it. Most often I'll just be doing quests when I have one to do, or help with penguins :D Do you vary your gameplay? If it comes to training skills, then yes. I can't keep training one skill, it's not possible for me.

If you're an immensily rich guy, be careful when selling shards back to the pet shop - apparently the money pouch does not check if the money you would get is over the max integer value and anything above is lost. As for the update itself - it's pretty neat. Really useful in some places, and most of the issues that have popped up can be fixed easily. I'm just afraid to put all my money in the pouch...I know it's not lost on death and I tested it...but I'll definitely wait a bit to make sure there's no bug. Also I hate the loyalty programme. I can't stand having so many things that I can't buy. And honestly, I think a lot of stuff is overpriced. Any of the skiller areas - Tier 3, you pay 69k points for a 7% bonus that's not even permanent? Seriously?

I just finished "Dawn of the Gods"(roughly translated title, read it in German :P) by Tanja Kinkel. A thriller about genetic engineering and how unsupervised research might be done with as few remose as and lead to similar devastating results as e.g. the surficial atomic bomb tests in the 50s.

Same here...I used to use guides when I first decided I eventually wanted to have all quests done(There were still over 100 left at that point). Eventually, I left out the walkthroughs and just looked up the required items, because it was often so frustrating to run back to a bank just to get a spade etc. But then I found those items often gave me too big hints about how some puzzle had to be solved and eventually I didn't use any guides anymore. Don't regret it - Especially after EWIII and MEPII, having those puzzles solved for myself felt great :) I can say I'm very disappointed Jagex got rid of the questhelp system - Imo it was the perfect system for a quest guide without spoiling much of the quest. If you were really stuck, you could use it and would know what to do...but you couldn't use it to get through the entire quest, and there would be nothing that would be accidentally spoiled to you. Shame they didn't go on with that, but I guess it wasn't used enough. I wonder how the quest guides on JagexWiki look like....*shudder*

I actually really like that idea! The issue is probably technical though - back when citadels were released, the reason given in the FAQ why they were not partly F2P was that Jagex said they could only make it fully F2p or fully P2P, everything else wouldn't be possible for them. This idea sounds like a bigger engine rewrite, and engine writers' time is always precious. But if it's possible to do, I think it could be a great addition.