Danqazmlp

95

93 We can do it.

91

88

85. We should be able to get a 'checkpoint' every 100 :)

Not really. When you cheat in a computer game, you are actively cheating. When you kill somebody in a computer game, you are not actively killing. Ok, it is only a very small study, but cheating in games is not consequence free and as much as people want to say 'its just a game', it can have mental ramifications. http://www.gamesradar.com/study-says-social-game-cheaters-more-likely-cheat-real-life/ When I was in highschool, everyone cheated at some point. Doesn't make you a bad person. Sorry, this study is pretty vague... "Offering a few specifics, the report indicated 53% of social game cheaters said they had cheated on tests at school, over 43% revealed they'd stolen condiments from restaurants, and nearly half admitted to stepping out on a committed relationship." As opposed to the number of people who don't cheat on video games? What if just roughly half of all people have cheated on a test...Stolen condiments from a restaurant...Wow...that's a horrible crime. And with divorce rates at around 50%, it's no surprised that half of people who aren't married have cheated... Sorry, but bullshit studies are often...bullshit. For instance, over half of runescape players are virgins. Someone could interpret this as "They are virgins because they play runescape"...but in reality, they are virgins because they are 13.... The difference is that cheating can be done at any age, so a link can be made. You seem to be entirely missing the point by assuming that just because a form of cheating or stealing isn't large scale it isn't still the wrong thing to do. As I said, the numbers are incredibly small for a study, but do show that there is a high possibility that cheating in a computer game can lead to cheating in other aspects of life. This doesn't mean they are a certainty, but logically it makes sense. If you find that you can easily cheat in one aspect of life, cheating and the punishments that stem from them become less dramatic. In essence, desensitising you to the cheating. Now again, I say that the study was small and there may be problems with it, but the numbers are there and are quite dramatic. The crux of my argument is that just because it is a game doesn't mean it has no link to real life.

Not really. When you cheat in a computer game, you are actively cheating. When you kill somebody in a computer game, you are not actively killing. Ok, it is only a very small study, but cheating in games is not consequence free and as much as people want to say 'its just a game', it can have mental ramifications. http://www.gamesradar.com/study-says-social-game-cheaters-more-likely-cheat-real-life/

83

They are lovely. I used to only eat the outside and leave the egg for some reason, but now I love the whole thing. They are a really common food here, you'l see them in even the smallest supermarket and probably even petrol stations. They are just a snack food though, like a sandwich or a packet of crisps, just something to eat for lunch. Sometimes you can have them with a salad or with cold food too.

77

75

73

71

67 True, too much effort.

Most of the scripts for game types have been fixed and even the lagg has subsided. Back to having some spectacular firefights.

65 We should really get people online and get the number up quickly.

63

58

56

54

51

You mean means by which don't actually help the real world at all, won't help on their future CV's and won't help them actually get reputable jobs? Life skills such as being able to successfully cheat? I understand that you mean learning the ability to code, but that can by done by legal means and which aren't considered cheating. They could attempt to make games or other programs. I could learn self defence by getting into fights but it would be learning a life skill in the totally wrong way too. That people need to get help if they have these problems. If you feel you are addicted, try to stop playing. Two negatives don't make a positive. The game has also helped many people escape troubled lives, and given thousands (if not millions) of hours of entertainment to people around the world. In terms of effect on Runescape they are one and the same. On the human rights front, well, it is controversial and a totally different matter, more relating to sweat shop working than related to Runescape in general.

47

It doesn't matter one bit about efficiency. It simply makes activities which are in the game for a purpose (to bring resources into the game and to make money, even if it is a small amount) useless for players. It is also against the rules and spirit of the game. Maxed accounts simply cannot comprehend (they should be able to but for some reason seem incapable of doing so) the mindset of a lower level player. X is more efficint so why would they want to do it anyway, just let bots do it is such an ignorant answer that it's almost laughable. It is such a simple subject that I'm always so astonished when people can condone bots. Oh well, maybe I'll go back to OT where people actually have a basic grasp of society.

I liked runescape better when there were more bots because resources were cheaper. Leaving out the selfishness of that post: You have already admitted to being an end-game player, so the effect on you from bots is minimal, but for players who are yet to get to that stage it is not. Bots reduce the number of activities a player can effectively do. Regardless of if it's efficient or not, a player cannot do many activities in their desired way with bots around, rendering certain content useless. If you view this thread you will also see how many people were happy when bots were gone. I see very few people (if any) being upset because bots were effectively removed. The positives of not having bots far outweigh the negatives.