Sorator

If you're using the prayer bonus, yes; if not, then the DG ammys are better.

Yep, definitely not fighting that boss ever. Ack.

But this boss was polled and put into dev BEFORE that halloween poll appeared, let alone before it got scraped. Not to mention that Halloween event would've been largely recycled assets since we've already been to the spider realm and met the major characters. Really? When did that happen? (Going to the spider realm, I mean.)

Ack; same. ._.

Better yet would be changing the loot to things with equivalent profit, but with a more likely use such as elder logs, higher chance for adamant ore/bars, coal, etc. Those are just examples, but the concept seems sound. The only issue there is that prices change, so they'd either have to set it equal now and not modify it later, or have it set to periodically fetch GE prices on the Taverly chest contents and match the Elf chest contents to that total.

As I thought. I've definitely seen folks getting banned for running gambling; not so much for just participating. But I do suspect it's not being consistently enforced.

I definitely like a better name than Max guild, for sure. I also really like adding a recharge feature for all the dstone items in one more easily-accessible place (the current setup is rather annoying, with two different places and a long run to each of em), and the "Max Guild" seems like a great place for it. If they make a different crystal chest, it should be something more random than the current one, and maybe somewhat better but still possibly worse on a case by case basis. Otherwise it makes the existing one in Taverly rather obsolete (why use the key on the Taverly chest when you could use it on the Elf one and guarantee something better, or if you don't have access to the city, sell it for more to someone who does?)

There's not a rule against multiple accounts, just a rule against having multiple accounts logged into the same game at the same time. Even if there's no interaction, having two accounts both logged into RS3 or OSRS is against the rules. Unless there's a compelling reason for an exception, which I don't see, I'm not okay with that, even if it is a comparatively minor infraction. I'm still not very comfortable with the idea that being logged into OSRS and RS3 is acceptable, even.

Eh, there could be more than one in the world. Just because the Museum doesn't know of any others doesn't mean they don't exist; there's enough room to make sense for the elves to be holding the other. Dahmaroc could have visited them, or the NPC from the new Shattered Heart thing could either be Dahmaroc's rival or have worked with him. I'm too lazy to check the doc - was that slayer challenge a comp req or a trim req? Either way it sounds like a pain, but it'd make more sense as a trim req I think. Also is each part issued as a separate challenge, or is the whole sequence done as one challenge? (I think it was the latter?) I'm not sure how I feel about the new style of pickpocketing... I think being locked out of the area for 20min might be more of a pain than getting smacked and stunned for 2sec, but we'll see.

There's your problem. Define (objectively): Big advantage Better yet, remove "big" from that, and just stick with "advantage". They might not always punish for the minor stuff, but that doesn't make it right. It wouldn't surprise me if Mod Balance had rephrased what Player Support said to him and we actually wound up with something a bit more stringent than what he posted, whenever they get around to the eventual rules change. Regardless, it's silly to try and contradict the official rules via forum post, even via Jmod forum post. You can make internal policy to not enforce some stuff (and they do that already, I'm sure), but it's not a great idea to communicate that to the playerbase at large - either the rule is a good one and you want folks to follow it even if you don't always have the resources to enforce it (in which case telling everyone you don't enforce it makes less people follow it, creating an issue), or the rule should be modified or scrapped. Anything in-between causes confusion.

You could use a million middlemen and it'd be illegal Aye. One of the main reasons for the rule against multilogging was to prevent the trading of wealth between accounts; adding middlemen doesn't make it any more permissible.

And until they change the rules officially, logging into more than one account at a time will be breaking the rules, so.... yeah.

Well, he's reworking it to be a pocket slot item instead of a weapon enchant (which is a good change to the idea).

Agreed... that would massively increase the supply without actually promoting their use. And it wouldn't have any affect on the pure ess prices, either.

There's probs gonna be a teleport into the city because if you have to go through elf [bleep] land every time you go there then screw that loll Grats Drumgun, well dun m8 There's a lodestone, and you can attune teleport crystals to each section of the city.

Wow, they really are making this a high level hub. GE access, ports access, dungeoneering and sinkhole access... goodness. The only thing I don't like are the color-skill match-ups. Some of those colors really don't match the skills they're aligned with at all; I'd expect Mining/Smithing to be red and Agility/Prayer to be white, for example. Oh, and the Voice of Seren bonus should definitely only be for the skills aligned with those segments of the city, not all skills that happen to get trained while standing there. That would just be too strong. Otherwise, looks fantastic! But I might never leave.

What was that, preventing you from running if you encountered one in the wild? Actually 2 things: they had pretty much very specific IVs and the other is that it increased the chance to shinyness of a baby to 1/64 instead of 1/8192. Not sure what IVs are, but I wouldn't say that being able to have shiny babies makes shinies useful or gives a game advantage. :P If you are trying to breed for shinies back in Generation 2, The odds of getting a shiny without a shiny parent were 1/8192. If one of the parents was shiny, this was reduced to 1/64. And since shinies don't have a game advantage outside of breeding, getting more shinies is also not a game advantage, thus shinies still don't have a game advantage.

What was that, preventing you from running if you encountered one in the wild? Actually 2 things: they had pretty much very specific IVs and the other is that it increased the chance to shinyness of a baby to 1/64 instead of 1/8192. Not sure what IVs are, but I wouldn't say that being able to have shiny babies makes shinies useful or gives a game advantage. :P

No, so you can't sell them. You can trade them for seeds and sell the seeds, though.

Seems like you can both do a task normally and get a Jmod to stamp one completed, in the same day. Though you might have to do it in that order. I'm not sure if you have to have the book with you in order to get a task completed normally/get it stamped complete by a Jmod. Also, the stamping schedule is not up on the forums yet.

I have also wondered this for quite some time.

I really like the bank update. I'm actually quite fine with renting/selling the extra preset slots; I think it makes a lot of sense to do that here. I would like the ability to fiddle with how charged/dosed items are handled; someone over on reddit had the excellent suggestion of cycling through the different charges, starting with the one you saved and then going down. I'd also like the bank to not close when I load a preset.

Only then the player choice really would be meaningless; we'd have the same discontent, only moreso, and with more legitimate grounds. I'd actually be upset over such a thing, because that would be an in-game bait-and-switch, whereas this was just some vague promises made outside the game that maybe weren't fully lived up to when the actual content was released - I'm much more okay with the latter than the former, partly because in my opinion they were lived up to, from what I know of it (which isn't much), and partly because they were out-of-game promises that were also made a while back, and plans change. In other words, what you describe would be far worse, in my opinion, than what they actually did.

Regarding DPS: I've always thought it was odd that we tried to balance DPS completely equally, given that mages have access to debuff spells and both mages and rangers have, well, range. I think it may have been a somewhat minor overcorrection from the massively unbalanced prior system, and I definitely think the current state of combat is far improved, but I agree that equal DPS =/= equally balanced combat styles; to say they are equivalent is to ignore a decent bit of utility. However, I probably wouldn't have been nearly so aware of that had I not started playing League of Legends, which values utlity quite highly and gives a great deal of thought into utility vs damage in terms of balance and playstyle, and as I said, I do think the current state of combat is much improved from what it used to be. Edit: Yoko Kurama makes the excellent point, though, that it's exceptionally difficult to balance differing utility. This playerbase constantly seeks maximum efficiency and the "best" of the available options, and giving significant differences to the combat styles runs the risk of developing a true best option. I'm not sure of a great way to handle that; League takes the approach of periodically nerfing the current "best" and buffing the worst and letting players cycle in replacements, while Runescape takes the approach of largely ignoring utility and equalizing DPS across the board, both with limited success. Regarding "Age of What?": I've seen a lot of folks complaining about FotG, either for the lack of meaningful choice, or for the idea that Zaros is good and pure and objectively better than the other gods, if not both - and I disagree. Zaros's flaws are hardly minor or hand-waved away - they may be portrayed as minor or hand-waved by Zaros, but of course he's going to downplay his own flaws when he's trying to convince you to help him come to your world. His arrogance and ignorance of mortal behaviors and motivations is painfully obvious - in fact, that's why he needs your help in the first place: he didn't understand the concept of "betrayal" until Zamorak pushed him from this world. And Zaros has never been cast in a positive light by the other gods; Jagex wanted to provide an alternative view, with more information than Azzanadra was willing to provide. To some extent they also wanted to appease their playerbase, many (if not most) of whom hold Zaros in high esteem and want him to be, well, cool. That Jagex coudl do this while still clearly portraying Zaros's flaws was actually kind of impressive to me. The same is true of the other gods - talk to them or their followers, and you'll be told their strengths; speak to their opponents, and you'll find their weaknesses and flaws. Saradomin and his worshipers will talk at length about his benevolence, wisdom, and guidance, to the extent that he was once thought of as the embodiment of good, justice, and law among the "main three" gods. But he clearly isn't quite so perfect, as you likely found in The Death of Chivalry. I think that's largely because the overriding narrative of the 6th Age is that the gods are just people like us, only with more power. Even Zaros (and what little we know of Seren, too), while not strictly "mortal", still has glaring strengths and flaws. The gods aren't perfect; they can be obsessive, selfish, or blind to what is happening around them. They can also be kind, merciful, and provide wise guidance. You, as a player, must decide whether it's worth putting up with the bad to get the good, and if one god is particularly better than the others, or if it is better to be free of them entirely. As for choice... I think Jagex is over-reaching. There are some pretty hefty technical & time constraints upon just how much impact a player's choice can have on the storyline. I agree that what they're doing right now isn't really what promised or what they seem to be aiming for, but I'm willing to give them a fair amount of patience while they try and work it out. I have enjoyed what choices they've managed to work in, even if they haven't been nearly as impactful as the choices in, say, Dragon Age. I don't think we'll ever reach that point of player choice impact, because it's simply too difficult to work into an MMO, but I do think people are somewhat discounting how much impact we're having. I think the choices made during Zaros's return will significantly impact the story that we've yet to see, and I'm not going to start complaining until I see a significant missed opportunity for that to happen. Of course Zaros is going to return regardless, though. He makes it clear that, at the very least, something major is happening that only he knows much about - he insists that he has a way to deal with it, and if you agree with his course of action, you can help him return in full; if not, you still need to get him to so-operate with you at least some so that you can extract more information from him and find an alternative solution. And from a more technical standpoint... they don't want to pull another Hazeel, and effectively kill off a character for half the players. If they did, they wouldn't be able to devote sufficient time to developing content that meaningfully includes that character for those players who didn't kill him off, because the other half of players will never experience it, and it's difficult for a studio the size of Jagex to invest that much time and manpower into something they know no more than half of players will even see. Someone in another thread mentioned Hazeel and reminded me that he is the perfect example of what they're trying to avoid with Zaros; they want to give players choices, and want them to be meaningful, but they don't want to develop a hundred different storylines for the different combinations of choices. So, we have the current setup of majority unaffected quest dialogue, with a few bits where you get to make a choice or see the impact of them, and then return to what everyone sees. However, I do agree that the plot twists in FotG seemed a bit manufactured; they could've done a somewhat better job of leading up to it and releasing information more slowly, instead of us getting to the quest and finding out, rapid-fire, that there are Elder Gods, there are five of them, they were born, Zaros is pseudo-divine whilst the other gods are mere ascended mortals, Seren and Zaros are effectively siblings and/or lovers as well as being the caretaker children of Mah, the Mahjarrat are sort of related to Zaros & Seren, the Elder Gods want to destroy Gielinor, and Zaros wants to become an Elder God as well as wake the other four who are currently "sleeping" on Gielinor. That... was a lot to take in. While I'm sure some of that got 'leaked' through Twitter and podcasts and such, those aren't really a dependable way of getting information to the players - I certainly wasn't aware of any of it. There was some explanation in the Mahjarrat Memories miniquest, but that was released so quickly prior to FotG that it all blurs together. I think they would've done better to take more time and trickle at least some of this information down in various ways before hitting us with the major bits (Elder Gods are on Gielinor prepping for the Great Rivision, Zaros & Seren are children of an Elder God).