Jonanananas

Really Jagex? <.<

I've had that problem on and off for the last week or so.

Really? I didn't have issues with that. Yeah, I guess the writing's different and some of the characters changed, but I still loved the books. In fact, book 12 probably has my favourite scene of the whole series. Posts like yours always make me wonder if I'm a terribly uncritical reader >.> Same goes for Crossroads of Twilight, which mostly everyone I talk to finds incredibly long drawn and boring and horrible, while I still enjoyed it - maybe not as much as others, but I didn't really get the idea this book was a low point in the series after reading it.

Well the big problem that I see with gaming addiction is not an unhealthy lifestyle but a lacking social life. And while surely computers aren't the cause of that, they can make it a lot easier.

From what I know, the main goal is to check the ground for traces of water, which would point to life possibly having existed on Mars once, or possibly being able to exist in the future (Though I guess "life" isn't going to go far beyond bacterial stage in these conditions if it exists at all.

That's what I'm hoping for too :)

I don't have too much of a problem with Jmods praising the squeal, but on the tech forums? Sure, there isn't really much those guys can do right there to fix the problem but saying "Our game is broken? Why don't you buy some spins instead?" is just low.

...wow Oh yeah guys, we just messed up fixing a really annoying bug, but to make up for it, we'll shove our RWT crap in your faces even more!

Wanna bet? Seriously though, do you honestly believe that the game will be closed by 2014? From, let's say 500k members to closed in two years?

Don't see how they would be able to hide it if they want to get any serious advantage out of it.

Recently there was a bug with Salamander trapping - If a trap failed to catch a salamander and collapsed, you wouldn't be able to set up another trap at that tree for a minute. I'm not sure if this is fixed - if it is not, then orange salamanders are definitely quicker. I'm not sure which method is faster if this has been fixed, should be about even at your level I believe.

I think they were at 600-700k before the introduction of trial membership, now it's hard to tell.

Idk which one was better. Dark knight lived with the Joker, and Heath Ledger did an amazing performance there. Dark Knight Rising did not have this kind of absolute jewel, but it still was an awesome film all around. It felt more...complete?

Great news :thumbsup:

It would be cool if teleport options for spells, jewellery etc. could be included

Jad is still obviously the hardest part of the fight caves, and if people fail, they usually fail at jad. Also, what about quest bosses? Nomad, Pest Queen, Vanstrom? Allowing to use the darts on them would be the same as replacing them with a goblin.

I get where you are coming from, and I can understand the frustration about the lag, but it's not the solution to let everyone just kill any boss, only because a portion of players can't do so because of lag.

It is undoubtedly true that Jagex can make more money with selling xp boosts and the like. The two basic questions are how much the integrity of the game is important to those in charge and how seriously the danger of too many players leaving is taken. You say LOTRO was saved by these microtransactions (I have no experience with this, will just take your word), yet Maplestory went down the drain. I'm not quite sure where Runescape has to be put on that scale. Until now, players have been pretty lenient with the new features, but the general feeling is quite negative, and you have to keep in mind that the SoF, RaF etc. are not the type of microtransactions for widespread use. As Alg pointed out, Jagex really aren't good at PR, and if they turn to a full microtransactions model, that may very well turn badly against them. Also, if it is of interest to anyone: In the FaQ thread in the Solomon Forum, Jagex said they would neither remove SoF nor introduce any stat'd items, xp boost or other advantages to the store. Let's see how long that holds...

Really? That was how many members they had before trial membership....

He had a smoke grenade. Those are illegal to own by civilians. Did the law stop him from obtaining and consequently using one? Furthermore, I can buy just about any weapon I want online, and have it shipped to me discretely (e.g., in parts) without being able to be traced at all. How does making guns illegal stop me from doing this? Oh wait, it doesn't. My morals and sanity prevent me (after all, I do not like guns personally). I would also like to point out that drugs are illegal, yet look how easily obtainable they are... Guns would be no different if they were suddenly banned in the United States. THANK YOU. Trying to make and enforce effective gun control in the U.S. would cause a huge political shit storm, and ultimately would not be effective because people could still get a hold of guns. You'd want a time machine in order to implement effective gun control laws. As for what being shot in a bullet proof vest would do to you - that really depends on the person and how much adrenaline they have. A strong, well built person with a large amount of adrenaline running through them should easily be able to shrug off having their bulletproof vest get shot. Also, I loved reading about the theatre asking people who have guns to leave. If an employee at the theatre of the shooting politely asked the gunman to leave because said employee noticed the gunman had a gun, that employee probably would have been shot. I'd have no clue how to get hold of a weapon. If a really had to, I would probably try breaking into a gun club's house or something, so would still get hold of a "legal" gun. On all recent shooting sprees here, the shooters got their guns from parents or close relatives. We've also had two I think where no guns and were involved, and no one died. Gun control laws are a federal issue in the US, right? That's what would make effective gun laws a lot more difficult. I am still of the opinion gun laws could work for the US too, they just need some time until enough weapons are removed from the cycle. Of course, if you can just get a firearm in the next state...

More hasty and baseless divisiveness on your part. While I didn't present any hard numbers in that post, nothing I said was false or controversial. Not only is financial information on Jagex easy to find; there was a popular user on these forums by the name of "Ren" who use to post such information frequently. I assumed a few things in my post. A) that Jagex has been profitable over the years, this is true and easily verifiable. B) that under the old model, Jagex use to raise at least 5 million dollars a month from subscriptions. This is not hard to calculate, there were roughly 1 million P2P players, and it cost 5 dollars per month, so you get 5 million dollars per month, at the very least C) The Gower brothers made hundreds of millions of pounds from RS; once again, a simple matter of facts; any quick google search will reveal that are worth around at least 200 million pounds. So what part of my post was baseless, or invalidated my argument? If I have been wrong in any of this, I would happy to offer a formal retraction. I will be waiting for you to back up your false accusation and show me how my argument was "moot". I won't be hold by breath though. I am not sure how this refutes in any way what I already said: that Jagex was making a lot of money under the old model, and especially enough to try their hand at numerous other projects, it's just that all those projects ended up mostly failing. No one, certainly not me, is opposed to Jagex broadening their horizons or branching out in other projects. No, the part of his post which I highlighted and responded to presented a false dichotomy where unless Jagex was given another source of revenue the game would cease to exist, this was false. Strawman. I never stated that Jagex should operate on the same revenue forever. I simply asserted that another source of revenue was not immediately critical for them to continue to exist. It is obvious that Jagex should branch out as far as they can. Another thing which no disputed. No one thinks Jagex should turn away investors. In fact, IVP has been a major investor in RS for years, since at least 2005, and the game was fine. The problem is not that they are involved at all. The problem is that they(an entity which doesn't really understand Runescape, nor its community or its various needs, nor can it relate to said community) now has majority ownership(55%). That's the problem. Jagex's profit went down several million in 2010/11. That doesn't sound like a healthy company. They said they are putting money into development and so far, every "development" we've had by Jagex failed. While I agree with you that IVP's majority share isn't good for Jagex, I think you can easily say that Jagex will have trouble running Runescape without some new source of revenue.

It's a completely false dichotomy. Firstly, under the old model, Jagex had two sources of revenue(at least); membership and advertising. Secondly, the Gowers, simply on the basis of the old model, managed to take what was essentially a throw-away hobby and turn it into a multi-millionaire enterprise, one of the most popular and longest running MMORPGS of all time. On this model, the Gowers were able to make hundreds of millions of pounds, for themselves alone. And we are to believe that this wasn't enough? I am sorry Jagex aren't billionaires. They were able to run on that model of only subscription and ad revenue for over 10 years, so it was certainly a sustainable model. That was when membership cost 5$, and they raised about 5 million dollars a month. Since then, they have raised membership prices(I have no problem with this) and started the micro transactions. Jagex hardly needed another major source of revenue, and they certainly would not be out of business, or anywhere near there if they got rid of the recent string of stuff. It's simply a false dichotomy:give Jagex more money or the game goes under. Not true at all. You have no budget numbers or anything making your argument moot. You and everyone else knows that's a business isn't just created to make and sell a product, have a flatline growth or make no moves to expand and broaden its horizons. It was clearly obvious he was trying to simplify the explanation of how a business secures financial means to grow without cutting itself financially thin, stagnating and then going under. Business grow like trees where the bigger they get the more money it takes to run them. You can't honestly expect jagex as a business to keep running and grow from its previous revenue. If you considered the amount of people who felt jagex always rushed updates, made poor updates or oversimplified updates... Think about what investors might be able to do to remedy these plaguing issues we constantly face. Jagex just didn't roll belly up when investors came knocking... They had to open the door because they had something to offer to their studios. I do not believe that jagex let them in purely for the money because the people that work their ENJOY their jobs and the game they play. On the flip side the investors didn't come just to help bring a game to ruin. I am sure they are aware how the community feels about RWT and don't want to crash their investments and lose money. Excuse the shameless plug, but have a look at the current Tip.it Times article by me. Jagex's profits were down quite a lot last year. Supposedly for development of new games, and until now not one project by Jagex except Runescape was ever really successful.

That depends on where you live. If you never see anyone but police officers carry guns, some civilian carrying a gun will *and should* make you suspicious. It's an entirely different case when carrying guns is commonplace ofc.

Gun control wouldn't work because there's still illegal ways to get guns. There are illegal ways to get guns here too. Yet I would claim that gun control works relatively well here. We aren't talking about how to prevent gun crimes of organized criminals but how to prevent access for these kind of people who go on such a shooting spree. And gun control can work there. We've relatively recently had two rampages without guns with no one being killed. Those rampages with guns usually took a heavy toll - and the shooters got the guns from their parents or relatives, not from some illegal source. And I think gun control is feasible for america as well. The problem is just that it will take too long to work, and most people in the period in between will think it doesn't work at all, which would result in such a law being abolished again.

Rules like this are asinine. If you confront someone who has a gun for malicious purposes, he's just going to shoot you and continue with what he was doing. But by preventing people who own guns legally for protection from carrying them in, you're removing a deterrent or protective force from the premises. Exactly the same goes for those "no guns within x distance of a school" rules. Someone who wants to shoot up a school is not going to heed the rule, and anyone who might otherwise have a gun who could stop the shooter is going to obey that rule. You're right that it doesn't help with shootings like this at all. It's only useful for limiting the damage that someone might do if a conflict/argument escalates, not if he planned to do anything with the weapon beforehand. The best way is still not to give guns into private people's hands at all imo, the problem is just that in a country like the USA, where weapons are so prevalent, it's going to take a while until enough firearms are actually secured for this law to work properly.