Sy_Accursed

inb4 'away from keyboard' status becomes synonymous with bots trying to pretend to not be bots.

Have you tried in priff? That does stick out slightly more westerly especially around the god statue. Plus with the actually city not being where the actual crater is it could be off the edge there somewhere. Only other more western area would be lunar isle.

I thought it was 1-5 per harvest and the 8 was the upper limit with boosts

Just because there are ways and means to boost it slightly doesn't not make it any less insane that the requirement was at the very best 5m xp gain and at the worst 40m xp gain. If you assumed a median performance on harvests you were looking at asking people to gain 22.5m xp aka almost 2 99s for a single title which is insane for any title let alone one in a set of 8 where they other 7 require 1000 easy kills, 8 easy slayer tasks, growing 1 tree, mining 100 ore, making 100 flasks, 200 laps of agility and speaking to an npc with a familiar. You can do all of the other 7 in like 1m-2m xp total. Even at 50 moss where at best you're asking 1.4m xp it remains a bit much comparatively.

I can understand why people who already did it might complain, that being said in a case such as this its their own fault for rushing through an obviously hideously imbalanced req that was bound to get nerfed.

Thank jebus for that, now at worst its only 10m xp instead of 40m

If people complained because they slashed max hits they'd be perfectly justified - there is no reason to do it. The answer to fixing shields does not lie in the nerfing of weapons - it lies in actually addressing the flaws of shields. The fix for shields is simple: Defence needs to have a greater impact on damage taken, particularly for shields. Plus we need some monster at each level range designed to hit hard enough that a shield is worthwhile using. Think of a model like dragonfire (before it got a bit tankable and super pots) it is an attack that specifically hits very hard unless a shield is used to mitigate it to the point that a shield is worth using.

Sadly it has nothing to do with bigger numbers and everything to do with strategy. It is a product of DPS and the effects of defence. The damage mitigated by using a shield is so little that the speed lost in the kill means you end up taking more damage overall. Strategically speaking therefore it is foolish to use a shield as all you are doing is making your kills take longer whilst getting hurt more overall.

I'd of thought it would be for the cutscene in TWW where the sword like pulses and stuff.

If its in the same tier it should equal so no real better or worse options until you get to the more diverse tiers in end-game. Dual wield melee beats 2h still afaik. In terms of style up until t80 weapons it is wise to conform to monster weaknesses, so yes having 3 sets for slash stab and crush is advisable.

Of course very true. I just found it quite interesting how a big part of the rhetoric of people supporting rune value improvements was that they had crashed and were far to cheap compared to what they used to cost and eoc ruined their value entirely and yet by the market index none of these statements really hold true - even though there is a case of the actual market value shifting due to price stability during inflation.

Bit that really got me from podcast (that hasn't been mentioned) was talk of harp xp rate being low because it gives dust. Erm all the feedback was pretty much nothing to do with xp and all to do with the fact the rate of dust is beyond awful.

My impression was that it was not a bug but an intentional change to throw off bots for a while. A tip if you didn't know: clicking the compass will turn you so you are facing directly north. Neither it was the short term fix for the camera issues where perspective went wonky. For whatever reason setting the camera to south on loading into a new area stops the issue.

What I find most interesting from the rune index is that it kinda shows that the idea runes were overly devalued and need buffing was kinda a bit of a myth really. If you take the most stable period on there (09-11ish) the rune index was in the ballpark of 110-130 And for most of 2014 the rune index was in the exact same ballpark. Certainly there was a post eoc dip, but by that index they'd climbed back to the usual stable region pretty much entirely prior to the poll.

I'm sorry, but I think you misspelled "beautiful". At least it might make T90 less of an eyesore by comparison Not that I disagree, of course. And considering their track record, "maybe at a later date" means "sometime after Half Life 3 is released". Wow your optimistic on that date. I'd of thought more like around half life 5 release plus a year or ten

mmm fc would be hard to work as there is no benefit to you to go there when you have a card - you can use a card solo or with friends. Where as if you want to be in a team with said card you have every reason to sit in there. Basically a recipe for a fc full of people without yak cards doing nothing.

They may have tripled some of the low runes but triple almost nothing is still mere pennies.

^ tru dat I like voting on if something should be done or the shape it should take. I don't like pitting things that should all be happening against each other, especially as jagex has a knack of dumping in stuff we were promised (aviansie quest, skill boss, inventor) tht inevitably loses. I also don't like voting on vague ideas - e.g. when rune value improvements won they literally had nothing on HOW to do it and it won mostly because of insane get rich quick ideas people projected on to and the result? A kind of ok vis wax thing that some people use sometimes and no real major shift in rune values with a few rc ninja fixes.

I don't think you need to add excessive grindfest to comp to make it less common. To make it less common all you need to do is make sure the incoming reqs are frequent and add new and differing challenges to the cape. Another factor would be the influx of new players - it is only becoming more common because there are less new players incoming than there are old players reaching the end-game. The issue isn't so much a lot have comp cape, its more than too high a proportion of players are end-game for the overall playerbase.

Pro tip if you're a douchebag about it: It doesn't actually make everyone find a recipe it just makes 1 recipe spawn per player in the team when activated, but these are not locked to each player so you can actually nab 5 recipes. But of course kinda jerky thing to do unless its your card and in a team who have, can't get or don't want recipes.

Why the claws though? Seems kinda like extra effort/needless to add in claws when the actual QBD is jsut a head sticking outta the water.

Perhaps because half your post about reasoning, though not using the literal word realism, tied in to the concept of realism. Muggers attacking you or not? issue of realism Evil wizards attacking or not? issue of realism Nothing in what you perceive to be dangerous dungeons filled with angry beats attacking you? issue of realism Your motivation might be safescape vs riskscape, but the fundamental arguments presented are underpinned with concepts of the fact these creatures aren't attacking you when they are 'dangerous' is unrealistic.

You can only pick bosses on floors that they can spawn on. Their lowest floor is defined by their unlock level. As he needs level 29 he doesn't appear before floor 15, which means he cannot be selected on floor 12 - 14 even though they are the appropriate theme.

I personally don't think its all that unrealistic for most mobs to be non aggro. After all in the real world the vast majority of animals won't attack you unless provoked, so why should the ones in scape be manic blood crazed attack on sight all the time?

I'm rather curious how exactly essiw would suggest you can some how make monsters aggro AND not afkable. They are polar opposites on the scale of monster behaviour - the only way for aggro and non-afk is they hit so much that you need to be there to eat. Surely you wouldn't be suggesting a compromise would be making lots of basic slayer mobs so strong that you burn through food fighting them enough that you couldn't feasibly afk? I mean that would render them near impossible to kill for lower levels who still get assigned them for the sake of making higher levels unable to afk. Also I'd say its rather ridiculous to suggest that they nay and yay sayers have the same priorities in the slightest or that anyone would assume such. By the mere fact of voting for the exact opposite thing it says without a doubt they have different priorities.