Danqazmlp

Cw may be older than most mini-games, but it was instantly popular. It wasn't deserted like MA and Conquest are. It has never really been unpopular. It seems much more reasonable for them to create a veteran reward for a popular mini-game which people will play regardless of rewards than for ones where people play primarily for rewards. It is hard to compare BA as it has rewards such as the penance horn which keep some people playing. I would however not be too argumentative if they made a relative item needed from BA, which has the same number of people able to use it, which is why I used the 10k in all roles mark in an earlier posts. Slayer may be popular, but 200m slayer currently has only three people at 200m. As I said earlier, Castle wars has 240 at 5k+ games. I am not saying the CW requirement is high, or that other minigames shouldn't have such requirements. I am saying that in terms of the number of people, it isn't much more uncommon to have than many other requirements.

I hate to say it but some of that last paragraph is pure opinion. Considering the highest reward set (and that is the set, not considering it comes as parts) was 2900 tickets for a majority of those years, yet many players went far over that requirement shows that the rewards were by far the only reason people played Castle wars for so long. This proves that the rewards did not drive the players to play, but the game itself did. Because the rewards came so slow, most people ignored them altogether when playing. I could also say that removing other parts wouldn't change much. 4000 chompy kills? Well it's only a hat and killing some birds. 120 Dung? Well it's only some floors and extra exp. Most achievements can be seen as arbitrary when explained in certain ways, but they are there and are needed to complete the game.

Yes because a single thing I say in a whole paragraph sums the whole thing up. Yes, it gives me an idea about the kind of person they are. I like to have friends who I can trust to play in the same vein as me, with the same general likes and dislikes. Cheating is a big dislike for me. Some people may condone it but it is nothing short of cheating to me. Cheating = bad. I won't delete somebody just because they may do something in the future, but it does come into the equation. People have no end of reasons why they may like/dislike people. Not everybody is the same. Just like how now i would have deleted you for belittling somebodies opinion with a pointless post, making you look like you do not care at all for opinions, on a topic which is almost completely about personal opinion.

Just because Jagex doesn't care doesn't mean the person shouldn't. I like to have friends who i know are on my wavelength. That means that they won't be actively cheating in a game I play. Just like how I try to not have friends who actively troll people or are overly aggressive to other people. I can also feel much safer having a friend who I know abides by the rules than somebody who cheats. Who knows if they would try to cheat me somehow? It is a personal preference, but to say somebody is wrong for doing so is just as bad as them removing somebody who cheats.

The difference between CW and other minigame is that it is actually popular and has a lot of people at these high numbers. 240 people currently have the required number of tickets for the completionists cape. Many more are only a couple of hundred away. MA on the other hand only has 10 over 2000 score. Only 35 are over 1000. That is so different that it can barely be considered. The difference is definitely popularity and rewards. Jagex made the higher Cw rewards knowing people could attain them. I could not see them making any MA rewards above 1000 points due to the sheer lack of people who would get it. To compare these numbers, only 437 people currently have maxed skills. Less than double that who have the CW requirement for the completionist have the requirements for a cape below it. Using the facts and numbers, the requirements don't seem as absurd as people make out. Lets compare it to other mini-games and see where they could be if Jagex were to make them similar. FOG would be at around 50k score, which 360 people currently have. Conquest, only 203 have above 3k score, so making it much higher than that wouldn't be the best idea. For BA, as it is split into four different categories, it is hard to get a good number of who has maxed the skills, but if we wanted to make having at least x in all of them a requirement, only 271 people have over 10k collector score which is the lowest. Going by those numbers, 10k in all BA scores, 50k FOG score, 3k Conquest and 500 MA rank are actually the only comparable scores with the same roughly comparable number of people currently having them. They are where I would expect Jagex to add rewards if they wanted veteran rewards for each, and that is stretching it a bit. Talk of 20k MA score is absurd as it is incredibly unlikely for Jagex to ever do so.

Yes, and it's LESS than 2000 hours of MA... Why do we have to play 2k hours of one minigame but only 2(conquest)-35(MA) hours of all the others? Castle Wars seems more popular then MA/Conquest. Nothing stopping Jagex from adding higher rewards for both of those like they did with Castle Wars when they updated it. Agreed. If they did add an MA reward at 10k points, then they probably could make it a requirement. But there isn't, so it isn't. The CW requirement is VERY recent aswell so... there is nothing stopping them from adding ridiculous veteran requirements to all minigames, question is, does that make sense? The logic is, either add vet reqs to all minigames or don't add them to the comp reqs, just be consistent about it, cw is nothing special. I never said there was anything stopping them. They cannot be consistent because Cw is the only activity with such high requirements. If I walk up to somebody with a trimmed completion's cape with a CW cape, I can safely say they haven't completed the game because I have something they do not. That is basically the core reason for it being made. It is an in-game item which you need to complete the game. Don't have it and you haven't completed the game. If there was a 10k MA reward, then that would also be needed to complete the game.

Being a cheater doesn't mean he is automatically scum. Some cheaters are good people, and nice to talk to. I simply don't care what goes on behind the scenes. To me and many others they are. It is a difference in personalities, but many people do see cheaters as scum.

I agree with you wkw. Can't see why people have trouble understanding why you would insult somebody who openly cheats.

Yes, and it's LESS than 2000 hours of MA... Why do we have to play 2k hours of one minigame but only 2(conquest)-35(MA) hours of all the others? Castle Wars seems more popular then MA/Conquest. Nothing stopping Jagex from adding higher rewards for both of those like they did with Castle Wars when they updated it. Agreed. If they did add an MA reward at 10k points, then they probably could make it a requirement. But there isn't, so it isn't.

If you think a thread should me moved/merged or simply does not belong, Report it and do not post. It is not a hard thing to remember.

So much hate in this thread. I know people have differing opinions, but that doesn't give people the right to be outright rude to others. Totally agree with that, partly because it was me who said it. On the second article. I can see where the author is coming from, but unlike many who seem to just make knee-jerk reactions to it, I'l explain why. Construction had been wanted for years, eagerly awaited and released in the best way a skill has ever been. The skill therefore was almost universally praised and gave all members a place of their own on the map. It was unique in the game at the time, giving players something which they couldn't do anywhere else. Dungeoneering on the other hand doesn't add this uniqueness to the game. It adds weapons and armours that help in other areas, but these could just have easily been added in other ways so aren't saving graces of the skill. The premise, although made in a way which cannot be done outside of dungeoneering, is full of things which can be. It is a miniature Runescape, make gear, kill enemies, kill bosses, get exp etc. It didn't add anything totally new to the game other than being a place to do those things at once. The game didn't need it to be a skill, it could easily have been a mini-game, or just instances around the game. Summoning I disagree with the article and did add something very new to the game, although on the whole does feel like a clumsy system to me with the charm gathering, but on the whole is something the game needed. Hunter just became another gathering skill in-line with mining and woodcutting. It wasn't anything spectacular but was a tried and tested system. Overall I agree with some points but disagree with others.

Saying there are always lies is no argument. Considering it was a yes or a no vote, the fact that they lied could have had a dramatic impact. As I have said, from my experience with people I know, not one knew the real facts. That is a pretty large impact if you ask me. That may not represent the whole country, but it gives me a good indication that the lies were advertised well enough to have an impact which could have heavily influenced the outcome.

Yes some of the numbers were made up, but Politics in general is pretty much opinion and presenting opinion in a convincing way. AV promoting tactical voting is something that perhaps I can agree on, but something that you outright deny. That is called an opinion and we are all entitled to one and allowed to voice it. Politicians don't always tell the truth. That goes for any politician all over the world. Nothing you can do about it. You are only claiming that the vote was handled awfully because you didn't win it. What was wrong with it? It was a straightforward vote. Each person can vote for what they see fit. I can't see what more you want. If you're talking about how the campaigns went, specifically the NO campaign, then that is not anything to do with the act of voting and voting process its self. Politics is all about disguising things to make them seem better for your side of the argument, and making examples of people. That's just life. I also fail to see how people weren't voting for FPTP or AV. Surely those were the only 2 choices? You vote for whichever one you would personally like - that's the idea of voting. Whatever makes you like whichever options is totally irrelevant. What you want is what you want and no one can question or criticize your motives. You can disagree with them, but not say O YOU'RE WRONG. When you say 'on any other vote', what do you mean? What is so special about this vote? I sincerely doubt that any other country in the world gives a toss about how we vote and what we vote on. In what way were the NO campaign cheating the population? They were putting forward their collective view on AV, which was their opinion. They did this a lot more strongly than the YES campaign did. That's not unfair. You don't seem to understand that many things the No campaign said were lies. They were not put forward as opinion, they were put forward to the population as facts. That is how they cheated the population. Until you understand that there is no point discussing the matter with you. In any other situation, if one side campaigned with admitted lies, there would be massive criticism and maybe even legal action. Yet here, there is none. How you do not find that wrong is beyond me.

I think it is valid to have disagreements with the way the vote was handled by those on either side. I agree that the Yes campaign was not good enough, but they did not resort to lies. I would say be happy to say "ok, that's that, the country has voted" if the No campaign on the whole, along with Cameron, hadn't done things which on any other vote would get universal criticism. If those voting had voted on either for FPTP or AV, then I would be happy, but they didn't, not one bit. The vote itself was handled so horribly that I cannot be happy with it. Yes more needs to be done to convince people about AV, but more also needs to be done to make sure one side doesn't cheat the population. David Blunkett has even admitted the Yes campaigns numbers were made up. That to me shouts cheating. The No comapaign also jumping on Clegg as the figurehead of the referendum was also not a fair thing to do, which is one of my major quarrels with our government as a whole, with politicians not voting for what is best for the country, but for party allegiance.

6 million+ people, 30+% of the country. That is a large number of people who are for voting reform. They not have won but from who I have spoken to, they are not going to give up pressuring for it. It may not be a majority, but it is a large chunk of the population. We then disagree in opinion on the first matter. I believe that people who have no idea about a change should not vote on it. This doesn't apply to elections as they have the chance of heavily effecting somebody. But changes and reforms which need a level of knowledge to make an informed decision should only be voted by people who have that knowledge. Too many people are swayed by the media without knowledge that they are heavily opinionated and give no way the full picture.

I am not saying it is not the fault of the Yes campaign at all. They definitely did not have enough advertisement and information around which could have definitely helped. This still however doesn't excuse people for voting on something they have no idea about. It's like me voting whether x part of government gets x budget cut. I wouldn't know a thing about it so shouldn't vote. It isn't arrogance to say they were mainly ignorant. From my experience, they were ALL ignorant and not voting on the core changes but political views surrounding it. if you can disprove that please do, but from what I have seen, I am going to assume that is the truth. In a way, it is a good result for the Yes voters though. This has proved that a very significant amount of the country is for voting reform. If it were to be put forward by a different party it would be a very different outcome. We can only hope that the pressure to hold another referendum at some point is there at some point.

I'll say this once then leave this thread. Saying alcohol, or x product is worse yet legal is not an argument for legalising something. It is an argument for banning that thing. Do not use that argument as it is pointless.

So my opinion can be ridiculed but my view of others cannot? Bit hypocritical there. Over 6 million people in the country were for AV. I would bet that more of them knew how it worked than those who Voted No, who mainly didn't vote for the system at all. From everybody I talked to personally it was group a, those who had thought about the voting systems and how they actually work, voting yes, and group b, who only voted no because of the Lib dem backing or through the lies in the no campaign. Not one knew how the system actually worked or the real facts. It's a situation where it would be better if there was a small quiz before people could vote just so they could know what they were voting for. The Clegg bandwagon and reaction in the newspapers is just unprofessional. One had a headline along the lines of 'Britain votes to keep democracy'. Yeah with headlines like that, no wonder the ignorant masses voted how they did. The media is as much to blame as Clegg or Cameron.

I still can't help feeling utterly cheated by the No campaign and in part by Cameron though. Partly because of the myths and lies spread, and then by Cameron's decision not to take actions against it. I feel that he did this because of his views on the matter which compromises his position as leader of the country.

If you voted according to that then full power to you. My point is that so many did not. ALL of the people I know personally who voted NO voted because of party allegiance or the lies spread by the NO campaign, not due to having an opinion on the core matter but because of things which in an ideal world would not no bearing whatsoever. Even then however, it seems (in my opinion) logical that the AV system is fairer due to it giving a clearer view of the overall majority of the country.

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system. You just appear to be sour that there is one more person who is disagreeing with you and your opinion. Respect other peoples opinions and then people will respect yours. The problem is that a lot of the opinion is just misguided. AV is statistically better than FPTP. It is there to give a better representation of the view of the country, over a system which favours voting for a party which you do not favour as much. Many opinions are not taking into account the breadth of data out there, instead just looking at which party proposed it and the oppositions blatant lies in their campaign. I do not respect an opinion which is wrong just because the person refuses to look at the facts. I know this is wikipedia, but it sums up the facts quite nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_runoff_voting_to_other_voting_systems We are now stuck with a system which does not work as well as it should. We have passed the opportunity to create a greater democracy, a country where those in power would have more support than ever before and would possibly give them greater opportunity to lead the country instead of being second guessed all the time by the 70% of the population who did not vote for them in any way shape or form.

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system. Old fashioned broken system that's worked fine for centuries. But it doesn't work. The basis of what it is intended to do, which is give people the opportunity to have their voice heard for who they want to run the country/their area is not what happens. = broken.

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system.

Massive congratulations to OTM.

But it is fairly broken. People can be elected when a majority of the country dislike them and don't want them in charge one bit. I totally agree with joke_slayer's post. I had a rant at my friend at uni today who said he was only voting no due to it being a Lib Dem thing. It is so frustrating that people can't vote for the referendum as it is without bringing party politics into it. It isn't about your preference to a party, it's about which system is better.