Soma2035

27 pairs? There are many players with 10,000 to 20,000 pairs. Someone had over 350,000 pairs. Which is why Jagex is so obviously going to rollback. They wouldn't let somebody go from 75m worth of climbing boots to 27B worth of them just from an update. You'd think so right? Then again, you'd also think Jagex would think these things over more carefully. I wonder how many people had old pure accounts that are now worth more than their normal accounts. Several of them already have posted on RSOF that their retired accounts are suddenly worth 2-3x...

27 pairs? There are many players with 10,000 to 20,000 pairs. Someone had over 350,000 pairs.

If you expect rules to be enforced, man you're in for a surprise.

Should black parents not be allowed to adopt a white child? That could cause confusion in other students because of the difference in races. Maybe the kid could explain to others that their family is just like everyone elses. Link in the OP, http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index.html , studies have shown that children of lesbians tend to have fewer behavioral problems. So for someone to have two mommies might even be better off than someone with heterosexual parents. Would children with no parents, stuck in the orphanage because they weren't allowed to go with the gay couple, be better off? You're literally saying that a child with no parents should continue to have no parents because you don't agree with certain lifestyles. Maybe the child can learn that having two parents of the same sex is okay, they're as good of a family as any other. I've known Caucasian / black students adopted by Asian parents throughout elementary, middle, and high school. We never treated them any different at all. In most communities today, race is no longer treated as a big issue, and in fact,, I didn't even really acknowledge people of other races were different from myself for a while. This is what I meant by current state. Let's rewind to within the year after the Civil War ended. Would I allow black parents to adopt a white child? I would strongly suggest against this too. The wounds would simply be too raw at this point, and it'll create more tension among both parties and in the life of the child. I never said that the children would be worse or better off. I'm not surprised that there's a correlation between good behavior and homosexual parents. But that doesn't change the fact that homosexual is still seen as "strange" in the eyes of many people, and thus in many kids. I've seen kids bullied for various mental or physical defections and to kids who don't understand homosexuality and who are taught differently by their parents, it would seem the children will experience a more challenging childhood. Are they better for it? Maybe. Correlation is not causation. But is it more trying? Logically, yes. And from narratives by those who grew up in those conditions, yes. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with their life style. It has to do with the fact that I don't think a student should have to deal with all the negative feelings surrounding homosexuals (whether or not these feelings are warranted - I don't feel they are at all, but you can't force people to think differently), and yes, I realize remaining in an orphanage is also a similarly trying lifestyle but I'm not ready to believe that being adopted with gay parents isn't worse. Especially in communities where gays are still openly rejected (such as states that still fight against gay marriage). If religion never existed, I don't believe the United States would even be here, rendering any discussion of our gay policy pointless. In fact, I'm fairly sure human society would never have reached its current state. As much as I hate to admit it, religion keeps the lives of many people intact. Religion has also prompted many wars throughout history, and hopefully you all realize that wars are arguably the primary reason for advancements in technology (interstate highway systems and the internet, for example, both originated for military purposes). If religion never existed, gay marriage is the least of our concerns. Also, if gays could have kids together, then the concept of gay marriage wouldn't exist. If both sexes could reproduce with both other sexes, it would essentially mean there's no difference between the two sexes. If that were the case, then there's really no such thing as homosexual... or maybe we'd all be homosexual. Sort of like how plants are both female and male.

Wasn't discriminating African Americans and Women part of life-style a while back? That has since changed. Now there are powerful figures such as Barrack Obama and Oprah. The point I am making is this is a phase in American culture. People will have to take in the change of society and evolve pass their current mindset and accept the fact that there are homosexual couples out there in the world. Homosexuality are not going to dissipate simply because someone thinks it is wrong. There are homosexuals on these boards. I am friends with several of them and they some of the coolest and amazing people I know. Discrimination against African Americans and women are different. For one, the religious connotations died down. Maybe the same will happen to homosexuality. Maybe religion itself is a problem, but it's here to stay regardless. Compare the Aztecs to the Amish. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. The Amish deprive themselves and their children of technology. I would have a serious issue with anyone who practices human sacrifice in our country today. But in contrast, while I feel bad for those who will never know the benefits of technology, the harm they cause to others is minimal, particularly when despite stigma within their own society, people can choose to no longer be a part of that culture. Similarly, discrimination against African Americans led to slavery, degradation of their humanity, ostracize from the society as a whole, and in some cases, rape and murder. Discrimination against women led to similar ostracize from legal processes. While personally I think discrimination against homosexuals is unwarranted, it's one of those "I don't like it but I'm willing to live and let live" situations. I don't like the idea of Catholic schools, or of businesses that support a religious ceremony and the implied lifestyle by offering benefits to married couples. But what's important is that we don't stop homosexual people from voting. We don't hurt them, or allow them to come to hurt, because of their sexual orientation. The opportunities the government provides to us should be provided to them unless there is a well-reasoned argument that states otherwise (like, raising children amidst the negative social stigma). But as long as a private organization doesn't step too far out of line, it doesn't feel like it's our business.

I actually agree with gays being unable to adopt. Think about what it would be like for a young student to have two mommies. Kids who've lost a parent already suffer teasing and probing questions from their classmates. Would kids with two parents of the same sex be better off in any way? My experience tells me no - I had a class mate who was raised by adoptive gay parents, who explained some of the additional difficulties she faced throughout her childhood. Have you heard teenagers use "gay" as a substitute for the word "stupid" lately? Back in middle school, my classmates and I thought it was just a more sophisticated word for "stupid" or "lame." Do you have any idea how this can affect the life of someone who's living with gay parents? How about learning of their adoption? I had a friend who was adopted, along with his half-brother, at a young age. From the sounds of it, he didn't cope so well when he first learned that his parents weren't really his parents. Nor did his brother. Nor was this unique. Yet this confusion has to happen earlier for a child with gay parents. Like I said, in kindergarten, when they're drawing a picture of their family and she draws two mothers, how will the teacher handle it? How will the other students? Unfortunate as it may be, until all the misinformation and negative social stigma surrounding gays gives way, I don't think it's a good idea for gays to adopt children. I pity the would-be parents who will not know the joy of raising a child because of this, but I would sooner have them deprived of this privilege than have more children suffer a harsher childhood. EDIT: Also, I don't see the issue with private industries and discrimination against homosexuality. The fact is, heterosexuality is part of a life-style in our society, every bit as much as the Amish technology-free life-style is. On one hand, we shouldn't allow culture to constrain our society entirely, so I would vehemently oppose any discriminatory actions by our government. But on a more personal level, that of private organizations, I see no trouble with requiring students to conform to the accepted life-style, or businesses giving small benefits to support what they feel is the "right" life-style. In this way, I feel those who complain about the intolerance of homosexuality are hypocritical, as they are intolerant in their own way. I think the bottom line is that people are different, and if people simply can't agree, as long as they're not imposing significant harm on others, we should all live and let live. Corruption is another issue, but again, not our issue. Given time, corruption will ruin an organization, so I fail to see how abuse of "charity" is our concern as a society.

Out of curiosity, how was the variance tested? By that, I mean how do you know the exact % being absorbed from each attack?

Is Godsword really better than Whip against high defense monsters? I haven't really hunted many boss monsters lately, but the few times that I did, I noticed that Godswords weren't as impressive as they once were. Mostly, it's the fact that the effect of strength on damage is approximately linear. And accuracy, in this game like it is in almost all other games, suffers from diminishing returns. When you have enough strength and accuracy bonus, the extra speed of the whip capitalizes on this strength bonus better. In practice, I had mixed results but I didn't test too extensively. In either case, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the C. Rapier is better for hunting large monsters too. Or if it isn't now, that it would be in the future. Our weapons and armor and temporary skill increases have gotten larger and larger over time, and I can't imagine this trend changing. Which would imply that the C. Rapier will be continually improved more than the C. Longsword.

Because after you consider how many times these people will die while running back, and how long it will take them to get there, a level 138 who runs around murdering level 40s all game long and running like a pansy from anything more dangerous will probably have a higher kill score? Also the fact that you won't be the only person trying this, and there will inevitably be a clan of decent size doing the same thing... and also that it's a hassle to get more than 5 people onto the same team anyways. :P

And takes 110 hours to get, has no stats(well, nearly), can't be used for slayer, can't be used for pvp... umm...where would you use it? I even doubt that it is significantly better than neitiznot at armored zombies(only place i'd see an use for it). To be fair lots of people already have tickets for it outright... Castle Wars has been out for how many years now? It also counts as a GWD item (at least, the Saradomin and Zamorak ones do). It's definitely comparable to Neitiznot. Compare Halo/Bandos Chestplate with Neitiznot/Proselyte top for example. +11 Prayer and +3 Strength versus +4 Strength, +1 Prayer, what is essentially +10 prayer if you're using Turmoil / Protect prayers, or +15 prayer if you're just using Turmoil (disregarding potential stacking with prayer bonus, which only weighs further in the favor of a halo), and slightly better defense. It's not an incredible item but I'm sure if you have it, there are appropriate places to use it.

Several people on RSOF have confirmed that the halos affect Turmoil. However, they do not affect Soul Split. It's also a significant boost, pro-longing the amount of time you can use the prayer by 50% (reducing drain of the prayer by 33%).

Not if it works on top of your prayer bonus, which it might. Also, prayer bonuses affect all prayers, these halos do not.

Or it's getting close to finals week and some of us are stuck writing essays and studying for exams.

That sounds like an extremely terrible tactic. Do your opponent's not harass your expansions at all? Also, a timed supported Marine push would simply tear your team mate down if neither of you are investing in early defense (timed meaning it hits before the first Stargate is complete).

I don't think you can get a task from Lapalok and run to Kuradel to take a picture not knowing what happened... so your statement can really only be interpreted as accusing him of lying. Generally, I think it's rude when people call me a liar, but I guess that's just my opinion.

Actually, that room is just very, very random. I've encountered one with a 5-man team where we got entirely wiped out (3 deaths, no food for anyone). At that point we just restarted. The very next dungeon we encountered one but used a grand total of like 5 food for it...

Hang on a second. +2 Stab / +4 Crush is useful while +Prayer is useless? I'd like to remind you that you can not wear any shield along with a Zamorakian Spear. As someone who's had a Divine for a while, the weapons I most frequently wear alongside it are the Abyssal Whip, the Rune Crossbow, and either the Void Mace or Staff of Light. Even now, how many good one-handed weapons use Stab or Crush? Only the Chaotic Rapier comes to mind, which is generally equal to the Chaotic Longsword according to most players that have had the opportunity to compare them first-hand... Also, 200 damage is really quite a bit. The average hit of most enemies you listed don't surpass 200 damage. The Dungeoneering shields are generally better than Elysian at avoiding unfortunate combos, but the Divine shield is better (most places where you'd risk a knockout, you'd be using prayer, and thus you'd have plenty of prayer. The cost is not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be). Also, speaking of current trends, one of the more recent trends in dangerous enemies is for the player to be vulnerable to all three attack styles. God Wars bosses always have 3 minions who do significant damage in all three styles. Tormented Demons attack with all three styles. The Corporeal Beast does damage in at least two styles, although I don't think anyone's really sure what he does as prayer doesn't block his attacks entirely. Many people still believe one of his attacks is ranged, but that makes little to no difference since it's his weakest attack. The Dagannoth Kings, although a bit older, attack with all three styles, and subject you to magical and ranged attacks from the minions. So where is Chaotic really better? When you're fighting little monsters that you don't even really need the extra defense against? When I was powering Slayer from 88 to 93, I was using a defender for the accuracy, and Proselyte for prayer bonus for Turmoil. Despite the incredibly low defense, I never had issues LP-related. Tormented Demons? They don't really do much damage. As I recall, their max hit is around 300. Only about a third of the time will your shield do anything, and when it does, your shield will save you less than 60 LP... so on average, you're taking 20 LP less in damage every time the Tormented Demon hits you. You must be getting hit a lot for this to be beneficial. In contrast, an Elysian removes an average of ~26.25 LP per hit (25% reduction * 70% activation * 150 LP average). Same amount of overall damage reduction, without the additional cost... with prayer bonus that helps slightly, instead of Stab and Crush bonus that won't help unless you're using a Chaotic Rapier. And if you don't mind the cost, Divine removes an average of ~45 LP per hit (30% reduction * 150 LP average). And it's cheaper than 200K an hour... and again, prayer bonus.

Forgotten Ranger's range attacks are incredibly painful too, even in armor. Also, I typically use robes, while the 118 on my team uses leather armor. Shades tear through that just as easily...

No, it doesn't -- shades appear to use a magic-based ranged attack as well, and leather armor is much more effective at blocking it, in my experience. As for bosses, protection prayers are effective against few of them. PS My personal "meh" to those who glorify video game no-lifing. Shades have two attacks, indicated by the two different colors. One of them is a magical attack and the other is a ranged attack.

The monolith room (I assume that's what you mean by Shade room) is very, very random. Sometimes, it'll never spawn more than 3 at once, and with a bit of focus fire they're dispatched fairly easily (choose the targets carefully, kill the shades targeting those with lower hp, prayer, and less food first after everyone first strikes a different shade to get their attention). Othertimes, it'll spawn four level 133s which will proceed to demolish your whole team. I hate this room. Lexicus Runewright isn't that "overpowered" though. It just requires more coordination with more people. With 5 people, the tomes become overwhelming very quickly so have one person dedicated to taking them out. Most players prefer melee attacks, which work fine on Lexicus. Just spread around when attacking him, and run away from him (not towards each other) and book barrage is relatively harmless. Alternatively, drop a gatestone outside. Every time he book barrages, teleport out, drop a new gatestone and go back in. :P

I suppose we're all out of Cheval Blanc 1947 too?

I don't really have high standards. Two friends and I play together, and when we feel like playing 5:5, we visit some high population worlds and just ask if anyone else wants to join us for that floor. We take pretty much anyone over level 100, and we've never met with complete disaster. To be honest, the three of us have most roles covered... so anything our guest team-mates do is just a bonus. If they overlap our roles, well, we adjust and it's not a big deal. The only real problems we've encountered are when players join our team with really high skills and don't really keep up well (like the maxed player who joined us).

Hmm, I don't get why you wouldn't get invited in a team. I myself am combat 133 and I usually invite people as low as 90 and still get about 19k experience on, for example, f25 large. I'm not sure if this is all that good, but the dungeons don't take longer than an hour either. Anyhow, I guess you should be looking for people like me, who do not care about slightly worse experience. You might even want to make a team yourself ;) EDIT: Never had any troubles with dem low levels either :D You haven't been playing long enough then. Not only are most lvl 120- complete idiots/leeches, but quite often they have mommy yelling at them because it's time to do hw/sleep/their PC time is up and have to leave in the middle of the game, leaving you pretty much screwed. Maybe you are right, I guess I just have to wait and see :) Ironically, I've had more trouble with high levels than low levels in this regard. A maxed player (barring summoning obviously) joined our game the other day, and he was the one slowing us down the most, since he spent much of the game away ("Hang on, I need a smoke.") And of course, in 5:5 games, the dungeon scales itself to the player with the highest skills, so we literally couldn't move most of the time until he got back... plenty of times, level 130+ team mates get themselves lost, or just stop paying attention. Or my friend Shorty who still fails the Simon Says puzzle... :D Then there's the 118 I typically team with and the 120-130 players that often opt in when I search for a team in the populated worlds, and they're just fine most of the time...

Maybe you keep repeating this because if it actually *were* true, it would support your position. The problem is that it *isn't* true. They are not giving out a momento to "those who attend the event". They are giving out a moment to *those who purchase a ticket*. They're not the same thing. At all. And the fact that they can change their minds about the item is irrelevant. They can change their minds about anything associated with the event. They could sell tickets for $125 and have the entire event consist of 10 hours of watching old home movies and eating stale chips. That doesn't mean that it would be right, fair, or even legal to do so. It also doesn't mean that because they have the power to not do anything they actually promised on that date, that you weren't paying in part to get those things. But what they can't do is get rid of the event. They can get rid of the memento, because it's not part of the agreed upon transaction. They can't get rid of the event. It's not so much relevant to the point as to attest to what you're paying for, and what you aren't, and what you aren't paying for is the flag. And yes, I suppose people who purchase the ticket without attending can get the reward. As I mentioned, I can agree that it was poorly designed in that people who don't care about the event can still get it... although I still don't understand why someone would want a sign saying "Runefest 2010" if they weren't at Runefest 2010...

You pay 75 pound; you get the banner You pay nothing; you do not get the banner. Doesn't sound like 'giving out'. You pay for the event. They give a memento to those who attend the event. You are not paying for the memento. If they were to change their mind, and decide not to give this memento to attendees, it is well within their rights. They may invite lawsuits for false advertising by doing so, but you never gave them anything in exchange for the memento, and therefore they don't have to give it to you. Therefore, it's not a sale...