RuneScape talk:Wiki Post/Editorials/Pures and Non-Pures
You just admitted to account sharing...Battleben 11:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pathetic, the author obviously has no idea on how a pure works.13:14, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
- (Shake Head) The mean of a pure, is not limited to its combat level. The scope of this article is rather inflexible... Well, if you think high level lets you play better there must be people who wants to play it by limiting the skills. That is simply speaking an inverse way to enjoy level benefits. This passage just denies that. The joy of killing with a easy-dead character and a valuable character purely depends on how the player views. Rewlf2 15:10, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
Im going to try and say this is the most non-flaming way possible.
You have NO idea what you are talking about and whoever let this article on the front page needs to have their credibility examined.
You treat pures as though they get one stat and nothing else, however this is completly moronic considering no serious pure gets just one stat. Just some obby maulers only get str but their combat level caps at around 35, where they can only fight other obby maulers they do it for fun. Pures will usually get 60 attack in order to wield dragon weapons and 90+ strength in order to hit like a truck. at level 70 combat they end up hitting over 300 with a dragon scimitar. They also have very high mage and range levels because they can level those skills along with strength and attack without gaining combat levels. Pures do not really fight mains anymore in the wilderness because levle 70 mains just do not PK. Your argument that pures cannot pvp is plain nonsense because you say, "O, if they cast a spell then the main will switch to range and kill him". You completly neglect the fact that pures will switch styles constantly, have high hitpoints (no pure has 10 hit points unless it is a just for fun account) and are far more skilled at switches and pvp then anybody who happened to wander into the wilderness. Please remove this article because it is giving people a completly innacurate look on what a pure is.
- Please note that that is an editorial, or the writer's opinion. 03:11, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
- The writer's opinion is severely biased, without even the slightest hint of research in what he wrote, That's like running around saying all black people are trash because they just are, without even knowing why they were called that in the first place.
--01:45, February 12, 2011 (UTC)