magekillr

I think super prayers are allowed into pvp. Interesting. What about restore specials? Either way, if they're already allowed, it kind of blows a huge hole in Jagex's "but you can't see it!" theory.

His point, and mine, is that the poll is worded so as to be a push-poll: It might be closer to a strawman, but either way, it does not represent the opposing viewpoints accurately whatsoever. Anyway, I'm combat 84 with 86 hitpoints, I can make extremes, and I don't think they should be allowed. Jagex's rationale is quite frankly stupid, but the main reason for opposing is simply the amount of damage one can do now. Imo when they came out with new weapons they shouldn't have made them so damn overpowered, they should have figured out a way to make it so other weapons are being used. Obviously the biggest step towards this was adding speed which came from RSC to RS2, but this LP armor is useless, just as I figured it would be when it came out. They shouldn't have added LP armor at all, but should have added enchantments or something. No one is going to risk that armor in the wild; no one. I can wear rune armor and hit 340's with just super sets and prayer. With extremes I could hit 360's. Unless I'm fighting a 1 defer, it's very likely that I'll be two-hitting people. That's just boring. Pking and staking are the only reasons I play this game, and have played it since its inception in 2001. That's what makes it unique. They already ruined it once by taking it away, and I'd really rather them not ruin it by allowing [cabbage] that can two hit people. How about life leaching weapons or something? Then I'd be willing to listen to the argument about extremes. On the flip side, I'm not opposed to allowing the super prayer restore potions in the wild. I think that'd be fair to allow.

What horrible poll choices. This poll is pointless, it's nothing more than a push-poll. You obviously aren't interested in actual discussion.

Pures won't fight you...they'll fight people who are their level. I have more than one account, lol. :roll: wanna stake me on your pure :thumbup: No one's gonna stake you with summoning or armor on unless it's vs. a main. And the few that do won't stake again, which is really where money comes from (cleaning people).

Are you kidding? Unless HP is increased substantially, there is plenty of reasons to ban them from the wild. They're banned now for the same reason. People are hitting so high as to two hit people. And if the HP adding armor is hard to get (I haven't checked its price) it's unlikely most people will even use it in the wild. I say this as someone who can make extremes at a low combat, too.

Looks like I'll be boxing for now until there's a "no degradable" weapons choice, or at least until I get back up to 200M or so. That should be enough to where using a degradable is worth it. At least I'll be boxing when I stake maxed main accounts. I should be able to stake dds/dragon scimmy as I'm combat 84 (will be 87 when I'm ready). I've gotten up to 70 dungeoneering in the past 3 weeks, just in case. Only 15 more levels to go.

To some degree, yes, there's luck involved (and of course first hit). But it's so much more than that. It's like saying poker is pure luck. Sure...to a degree. If you're a good statistician, you should be a good staker. That analogy doesn't work. Poker is all about decision making and composure on top of luck. What you do during a round affects your chances of winning the hand. In strict-rule staking, with the same weapon and spec weapon, the only elements are first hit and whether or not you keep attacking the whole time. What makes you a good staker or not is how often you get the first hit and your capital (which lets you keep going for longer before being "cleaned"). The only real strategy is guessing when the right time to quit is, and that has nothing to do with stats. That's not true. If it were, I would not have been able to win from 0 to billions several times over and over. No, I wasn't cleaned, but I have quit many times. Decision making: exactly. Knowing how much to stake, who to stake, what rules for different stats, etc. It's just luck if you're a maxed out staking another maxed out, I agree with that. Otherwise, I completely disagree. And I'm not just talking about 1 prayer people staking people of their level, there are strategies for almost any combat type. Example: if a 99 attack 45 def 99 strength wants to stake a 70 attack 70 defense 99 strength, the 70 defer should ask for boots on (or shields if the 45 defer is stupid enough).

To some degree, yes, there's luck involved (and of course first hit). But it's so much more than that. It's like saying poker is pure luck. Sure...to a degree. If you're a good statistician, you should be a good staker.

Yeah, uh, I can make extreme pots on my pure (I bought herblore before I quit), and I don't really think they should be allowed after reading about them.

I'm extrapolating numbers from http://forum.tip.it/topic/254457-grimys-spreadsheets/ and rounding slightly because there is no straight DPS for no armour, just down to 10, and I'm too lazy to calculate it precisely. From Chaotic Crossbow: -Rune crossbow is 1% worse -Obby rings are 6% better -Karil's crossbow is 10% better -Rune darts are 11% better -Dragon darts are 14% better -Hand cannon is 16% better So for one-handed duels, you're looking at dragon darts > rune darts > rings > any crossbow I call bs. No range staker in their right mind would ever use rune darts over obby rings, unless something's changed since 2007. The damage/accuracy advantage made up for the speed substantially. All I'm doing is taking numbers off Grimy's spreadsheet. That's it, I'm not making any judgment. If you have a different source of numbers (like a sample of a bunch of duels between rings and darts), I'd love to see it. I didn't look at rune knives but they're probably up there as well. I'm not using numbers, I'm using dueling experience. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I'm just saying that as someone who staked often -- all types -- that I would NEVER, EVER, use rune darts against obby rings. Rune knives would do better than darts, but they'd still almost always lose against obby rings. I would only use knives if I was staking a low def person, and even then it might still have been better to use rings. About staking being only luck: it's not. If you think so, come on over to the duel arena when it comes back and stake me :)

I'm extrapolating numbers from http://forum.tip.it/topic/254457-grimys-spreadsheets/ and rounding slightly because there is no straight DPS for no armour, just down to 10, and I'm too lazy to calculate it precisely. From Chaotic Crossbow: -Rune crossbow is 1% worse -Obby rings are 6% better -Karil's crossbow is 10% better -Rune darts are 11% better -Dragon darts are 14% better -Hand cannon is 16% better So for one-handed duels, you're looking at dragon darts > rune darts > rings > any crossbow I call bs. No range staker in their right mind would ever use rune darts over obby rings, unless something's changed since 2007. The damage/accuracy advantage made up for the speed substantially.

If every skill gave hidden combat bonuses that would be true. Such as firemaking giving you the ability to light weapons on fire for added damage - would be a combat bonus. Smithing making your armor - isnt. However smithing adding armor plating or spikes to your armor (for added defense or offense, respectively is) Also, another reason herblore shouldn't add to your combat is because it would give people combat levels they may not have wanted. It's not fair to suddenly increase people's combat after the fact; dungeoneering and summoning were both released with the knowledge that it would add to your combat.

Herblore should not add to combat. In the end, every skill adds to combat somehow someway. The solution is to just make the potions tradeable. Or disallow them in the wild, and when you hop over the ditch have any potions immediately go away so you can't pot outside.

This sounds a lot like the old RSC, except unlimited and you can't switch in the middle of combat (Lol, I remember I lost one of my switches to avoid losing full addy). IMO it shouldn't be limited to 15 days. I'd limit it to 24 hours, just make it so you have to do it while you're logged out (the timer is a good idea). That was really the bad part about it. You could switch if you ran away right when they were chasing you. Also, long time no see, Merc.

As someone who has played this game since the beginning (well, not quite the beginning...but March 2001, which was before the wilderness), I can tell you why they implemented the wilderness. The reason the wild was added was because back in the day, you could only switch from PK'er to Non-PK'er like twice. That was it. Once you used up your chances, you were stuck as a Non-PK'er (or a PK'er if you started out as one). With the wild, you didn't have to pick. This allowed players who used up their chances to choose when they wanted to PK as many times as they wanted. Also, during this time, banking was only used for gold (and the highest amount of gold that could be traded was 65k). So if you were a PK'er, you had to sell all of the stuff you PK'ed before you could bank your loot. And guards' initial purpose was to stop PK'ing in town. Lol, I guess they didn't anticipate people's levels. So imo, they could bring back PK'ing everywhere and just implement it better than was done during the beginnings of RSC.

I quit purely because this was taken away. If it comes back, I might come back. Bring on the moneys :)

I quit and gave away all of my stuff the day they announced the duel arena and staking were gone. I have like 1 million worth of stuff now, but I had 2 billion in gold/items at the time. So yeah, I haven't played since 2007. I haven't decided if I will play again if staking is brought back, but I am intrigued...shouldn't be hard to get back to over 1 billion if it's brought back. Definitely voted yes, just in case. Of course when Diablo III comes out I'll probably just be playing that, but who knows with Blizzard and their delays.

Always a dichotomy with you, isn't it? No room for nuance; no ability to even see that I was being completely facetious until my sentence starting with "Notice." Did it ever occur to you that as bad as government is, that corporations after profit are absurdly worse? I take my lesser of two evils, thanks, as anarchy -- my preference -- is unworkable and might be worse than corrupt government hubris. So you support ending the Military Industrial Complex, which includes our Empire, too? Glad to hear it. And if churches and charities were so good at what they do, there wouldn't have been a need for government programs in the first place. History is your enemy, my friend. Take lessons from Germany's billionaires and millionaires: It's not really voluntary so much as it's about ulterior motive (saving souls). Go get a degree in economics before you start spouting off [cabbage]. It's a fact that food stamps and unemployment benefits create the best stimulus during recessions, and economists from all parts of the spectrum -- from New-Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian, to Hayek -- will all tell you that. Businesses require demand before they will start hiring again. Why hire when they can match demand with a lower workforce? Oh, right...just give them more tax cuts to pocket, and THEN they'll start hiring amirite? No need. There's a Senator-elect from Kentucky who takes the same position as Goldwater: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWBDWU7qES8 Your crowd is the same as they always have been, except the fringe elements are now the mainstream Republicans. And this will be my last response on this topic that trends off-topic. Take anything else to PM.

Is it me or do all liberals hate America? I hate any country that imposes its will on other nations by force, and builds military bases all over the world while its children cannot afford college or health care. Call it "tough love," something conservatives love to play with the unemployed; why do you hate 9/11 first responders? Although I hate most governments, so why are you discriminating against all of the other ones you're leaving out? Notice I said "empire," not "America." This means an end to our foreign military bases, and an end to our wars in the Arab World, the Middle East and South East Asia. And to the topic at hand, conservatives don't want to end DADT because they know what I know: the repeal of don't ask don't tell makes their opposition to gay marriage harder and harder to sustain. And of course their contempt for the civil rights of minorities in general. Just ask Barry Goldwater, their candidate in 1964, whose candidacy focused on the opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

End the Iraq War, end the Afghanistan War, end the Yemen War, end the American Empire.

A top aide to German Prime Minister Angela Merkel today explained that Germany does not view WikiLeaks as a threat at all. Indeed, the official, Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere, said that while WikiLeaks was "irritating and annoying," the true threat comes from having governments be able to pressure private corporations (such as MasterCard, Amazon, Paypal) to terminate relationships with entities the government dislikes ("he said he was opposed to financial entities cutting off payments to WikiLeaks under pressure from Washington. 'If this occurs under pressure from the U.S. government, I don't think it is acceptable'."). WikiLeaks “no threat,” top German official says So what was that about "no evidence the U.S. government is pressuring private companies" again?

One of the Wikileaks cables said that Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" was banned in Cuba --- and it wasn't: Sicko Was Not Banned in Cuba This raises an interesting question, doesn't it? How many of these cables, rather than being the unvarnished facts which reveal the public lies are actually another layer of lies from bureaucrats trying to appease their bosses?

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention Generally people fail to understand that extended solitary confinement is sanity-destroying torture. It causes people to go insane.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/13/funding-illegal-israeli-settlements-priceless/ edit: THANKS, BLOODSTAIN for that post. Prison-rape jokes need to stop. It's a serious issue and a serious problem in America.

It's nice that people can learn maturity and find themselves whilst studying history, but that benefit to society is not as direct as learning applicable skills and you haven't convinced me that with a massive deficit taxpayers should still be paying for people to learn more about themselves. I don't doubt that people do learn skills studying arts and humanities, but the benefit is hard to quantify and the link between GDP and education levels could be correlation not causation. Even if they don't go to university they'll still have had many years of education and will be still adults. People can learn all the essential life skills that uni might teach them in a job that might be better suited to them in the first place. I don't buy the link between subsidising arts and humanities and government paying less in the long run. I'm not saying all funding to universities should be cut, that's a separate argument. I think the government should subsidise these kind of courses whenever possible for their own sake, but in the current economic argument it's pretty hard to justify. The argument about tuition fees however is separate. You're looking at what I said from a purely economical model yet still, and seeing college as a place where you learn how to be a good worker. That's not its only purpose. So you more or less missed my point, or don't think it's very important; the mere environment gives college a solid advantage over any real life experience. Perhaps I didn't articulate it well enough, implying that you learn how to balance a checkbook or something. Here's a start on the correlation thing, where the correlation strongly suggests causation: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/what-happened-to-argentina/ In addition, for the theoretical basis, we have a bunch of endogenous growth models that describe the role education and R&D have in growth. http://econ.la.psu.edu/~bickes/endogrow.pdf How can you even think it might be only a correlation and not necessarily a causation? It seems so intuitive - why would your parents want you to go to school if it didn't improve your income?