Sinkhan

This is similar to why you'll probably see more Toyota Corollas than Lexuses. Lower cost for a similar function. There are some obvious flaws with this analogy, but the basic idea is there.

I just still can't over how much stuff his kit has. Even Nid who also has 7 abilities doesn't pack as much stuff as this guy.

And it's got a huge explosion radius.

Jayce just seems to do everything but heal/shield. AOE Burst/Poke, team and personal MS boost, jump AOE slow, knockback stun % HP nuke, MR/Armour shred, passive armour, mres. Just so much utility/dmg/survivability.

I think that would be a reasonable change to it, even if they lowered the stats on it a bit. Make it a jack of all trades sorta thing that gives you the utility of shield + HP + offhand.

She's very high skill cap (and also not an AD and thus has totally different playstyles and team goals). Very powerful though, as anyone who's watched Froggen at tournaments (EU player) will tell you. Ashe also has hawkshot which is really potent vision. However, Sivir isn't quite as weak as you make her out to be. Her teamfight damage is quite high because of ricochet and then there's of course her ultimate, which synergizes with certain bruisers like Jax and Udyr. Her laning fairly strong, especially against big CC lanes like Leona/Blitz/Ali. With a CC support of her own she can chunk pretty hard with Q+AA+W+AA. I personally like Caitlyn the best and she's fairly easy to learn and master. A lot of people find her boring, but there's just something fun about trying to poke down your opponent and force them out of lane as much as possible using your ridiculous range. I also love using her ult. Even though it's probably one of the weaker AD carry ults, it's just so satisfying to successfully snipe a target. The best combo of strong/useful/easy to pick up right now is probably Graves. Huge burst, great steroid + escape, smokescreen is unique and powerful, and passive is very strong for trades/dueling.

What does this have anything to do with my point? You can suggest all you want about what I may said, but do not think it makes you correct or elevates you to a higher position. Whether or not they are focused on making F2P "lower quality games" has nothing to do with the actual reason why they weren't making money with the other games; that's a result, not a cause. You've still not addressed my original argument. I claimed that developers on the PC are never able to produce a game that is fully optimized for every game system. At most they are able to make a fairly reasonable game on a couple of standard systems; in console development you just make your game the best it can be on one specific hardware platform. The subsequent argument was that developers purposefully make their game less intensive by introducing cartoony graphics. My original argument was completely twisted along this path about how developers and consumers are less concerned about the graphics nowadays, but a sound argument to challenge my first suggestion has not been presented. In essence, my overarching point is that PC gaming sacrifices a lot of efficiency for flexibility. Crytek didn't fail because they made a realistic game, they failed because they made a realistic game that wouldn't run on most people's computers. They made an engine that wasn't particularly optimized at first (although they did do a bit in Warhead), but capable of rendering some pretty impressive graphics. Now imagine a world where PC was just another console. If you took top of the line hardware from the era of Crytek's release and put it on a machine that Crytek specifically optimized for and nothing else and then expected everyone to have the same thing, Crysis would run fabulously on it. It is here that I think you just like arguing with people for the sake of it. This argument was always in support of your OP. For the same cost, you will always get a machine that will be able to run games less efficiently, but that's more attributed to the game and not the hardware. This leads to you having to tend to have to pay more for the same performance. Psychological analysis? Where? Pointless ad hominem? Right here! If you want commentary, I will say your argumentative style relies heavily on logical fallacies. Whether or not it is "outdated" is largely irrelevant. My friend is using an "outdated" ATI 4870, but that slugger can still run Skyrim on pretty much max settings. What matters is how good the hardware you buy is and how well the devs can code the game. PC hardware may be vastly superior in every way, but developers cannot make the most of that. They have to basically design their program to work "reasonably well" on a few select configurations and then hope that everything else in between is alright. With a console, you have exact parameters and specifications for which to design and test your game on. These specifications will never deviate or vary. Yes well these exact perameters hold back the gaming industry by forcing devs to use 7+ year old hardware to make their games on. It certainly is; but for the time being it does allow developers to produce a refined and optimized product. Over the years the graphics quality of games has steadily improved on the console, but the hardware really hasn't (Mostly just HD sizing and measures to shrink the physical model and reduce cooling) It can be largely attributed to developers learning the technical limitations and specifications of hardware and then exploiting everything they can about it. Gran Turismo 5 looks stunning and is a noticeable improvement to GT5:Prologue.

Yep. Defense became the one true skill, and combat levels are calculated differently. It... Still needs a bit of tweaking. I'm not exaggerating at all. Defense is necessary now. What about rune pures?

There's definitely a noticeable difference in all of them in no matter whatever resolution. Condescension aside, the points that you brought up are not your typical player opinions. Calling cartoony graphics as lazy programming is not something you can justly criticize about a game if you can't base that opinion on something. Your average player does not have a good understanding of how games are actually coded and implemented and what determines if something is "intensive". Going back to your argument about Crysis, their marketing was fairly good. Everyone raved about how gorgeous the game looked and that itself carried itself into the minds of a lot of consumers. Where did they fail? They released the game ahead of its time. Few people had the hardware to adequately reach the maximum potential of the CryEngine. That, along with an overall fairly generic game with wonky enemy AI and awful vehicle mechanics, was a large part of Crysis's lacklustre performance. Crytek is used to this though. Almost the exact same thing happened with Far Cry. They seem to be less of a company that produces good games and more of one that produces top notch game engine. Curious that you would sought a need to edit a number of your posts.

I never said they "cannot take advantage of current hardware". I said they can't make the most out of it. How do you do that? You program all of your stuff to work exactly for that piece of hardware and then take steps to exploit every bit knowledge you have. You can't do that with PC gaming.

When I used to watch competitive TF, accuracy was basically everything. You can't burst what you can't hit. So not really OP, just probably really strong in super close range and also suppressive fire (might also be good for nuking sentry nests?)

Lol. So you're obviously clueless that one of the people on your side of the argument had to correct you and yet, I'm the retard. K. Well all things considered, even if he was of a certain intelligence level, it really should have no bearing on your own intelligence level. It would be cool if we held back on that sort of language though.

This could be more of a game design/engine optimization thing than actual intensiveness. Diablo II will max out resources on just about any modern machine. Why? It was designed in an era where computing power and resources were scarce so developers coded it such that it was greedy about requesting resources and tried to max out CPU usage as much as possible. This of course hasn't been changed so it still exists today.

I'm a 4th year compsci student. This is like teaching high school programming to kids (i.e. you). What's your creds? Oh right, you don't have a console. Cool story bro. Credibility doesn't actually lend credence to the points presented themselves. If Bill Gates says deleting system32.dll makes your computer better at playing games, him actually saying that, despite his credentials, doesn't actually make what he says true.

Whether or not it is "outdated" is largely irrelevant. My friend is using an "outdated" ATI 4870, but that slugger can still run Skyrim on pretty much max settings. What matters is how good the hardware you buy is and how well the devs can code the game. PC hardware may be vastly superior in every way, but developers cannot make the most of that. They have to basically design their program to work "reasonably well" on a few select configurations and then hope that everything else in between is alright. With a console, you have exact parameters and specifications for which to design and test your game on. These specifications will never deviate or vary.

I've had this debate/discussion with many of my friends and overall I agree that PC gaming probably has more disadvantages than advantages. Some Commentary on Points raised in this thread: Costs and Performance There is no debate here. PC gaming is just strictly more expensive as mentioned. A $500 PC will give you a machine with very modest specs that will only be able to barely run new games for a year or two. You could future proof yourself for about 2-3 years by dropping closer to $1000, but it simply pales in comparison to consoles. The PS3 when released brand new was around $600-$700 and was hailed as an expensive monster, but that same money could buy a perhaps slightly above average gaming PC (and at the time with no blu-ray player). PS3s were also interesting for a while in that you could slap Linux on them and just use them as a computer (I think they changed the firmware to disallow this?) In addition to the bug and glitches that may exist for all of the varied PC configurations, developers are also better able to optimize their game for their hardware. There are no graphics settings you configure on a console (other than like subtitles or blood) simply because developers code their game to be as good as possible on one hardware setting. This lends to consoles having such good performance despite having dated hardware. Newer games like BF3 when compared to their PC counterparts still look quite stunning and for a fraction of the cost. This is a very half-baked and weak argument imo. I can guarantee you that PC community is just as capable of slinging colourful slurs at you (Just play some League of Legends in low elo) :P. That aside, I don't really see the point of what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that we are a crappy community because we apparently regard ourselves as better gamers? I don't follow the logic in that. Even if we go by that standard, we have pretty much the same sort of grudge match between PS3 and Xbox. So in that regard, both communities are equally crappy. Modability PC users do have one indisputable advantage though; flexibility. Games can be modified on the PC, unlike the console. Source engine games are a perfect example of this. We have a good number of high quality free mods for a plethora of different games. Looking past that, there are community made texture packs for certain games like Skyrim and Oblivion or custom UIs for games like WoW. PC gamers have the unique advantage of having a great deal of flexibility in how they want to play a certain game. Scale I find that PC games are also played on a much larger scale than consoles. You can hook up two or more Xboxes and have a decently sized group to play Halo, but rarely will you ever find a game on the console that supports huge slugfests like 64 player maps in BF2 or 25 (or even 40) man coordinated raids in WoW. Control Scheme I'm biased in this regard (well with most of these points really) in that I absolutely cannot use analog sticks proficiently to do just about anything. The keyboard and mouse is provides so much more finesse in terms of aiming/key selection, which is why you'll probably not see large scale RPGs or complex RTSs on a console any time soon. And as already brought up, you have the option to play most of your games with a controller now (a lot of recent games are just console ports anyway now, the control schemes being a very obvious giveaway) on the PC, but the converse is almost never true. Buying Games While piracy leading DRM is certainly very annoying, the nice thing about PC gaming is that price points for a lot of them are actually quite low now. Many console gamers seeking to save money will buy/sell their used games to places like Gamestop, cutting all support to the developers. This has actually led to some forms of "incentives" to buying a game brand new, like the Cerberus Network for ME2. It's not quite DRM, but it does go to show that consoles do have a similar issue to deal with. Steam sales often make games so low that I will often buy them even after pirating them. These aren't arguments for which is cheaper/better, but I know if I want to support the developer, it appears to be cheaper to do so.

You might as well go for broke and just get trimmed as well.

I'm going to wear their armour while doing this quest.

I think the combat is plenty interesting, if maybe not particularly challenging (at least in low-level normal difficulty stuff) There aren't really many MMOs that have quests that vary from the basic formula; even WoW has a lot of that. RS is a little more unique in that regard in that we actually have quite a lot of puzzles as well as concurrent story lines. Cash shop is fortunately cosmetic only; monthly sub is a bit much on top of purchase price. Idk, I'm still enjoying it.

Tera - Action MMORPG Pretty cool game that has an interesting combat system. Dodging/skillshots and all that fun stuff. Lots of skin as well, especially on the Castanics.

Is it possible for you to run a virtual box? Or dual-boot into windows?

It takes 5 mins for a branch to grow back, half an hour for a whole lot, give or a take a five minute chunk depending on how close to the "growth" tick you get. Fruit trees are what you might be thinking of. The real issue here is that branches only start growing after their health has been checked so you would in fact have to make two runs. I also do random willow branch runs at 99 farming because why not and they are the only worthwhile tree at that point.

That could be almost as bad as the person who got a divine sigil the beta.

Extra Credit - Power Creep We've seen it happen in RS quite a bit. Rune gave way to dragon which gave way to bandos/barrows and then Nex gear. We got curses which are a massive boost over regular prayers as was the case with exts/ovls over supers. It's gotten to the point where a lot of monsters that were once regarded as high level and difficult to beat (like most of GWD, KBD, and Jad) have become way easier with these new additions. I'm interested to see how Jagex rebalances everything with the combat rework and can perhaps effectively "reset" the power level to a normalized point.

You got 400k RC xp in F2P? :blink: