22-Nov-2011 - RuneScape Revolution v3 & Anti-Gold Farming Measures V2

[Assume Nothing]

I'd also take up Merc's point... it is very difficult to identify something with that much certainty over the Internet when you can't actually see who's on the other end of the computer. Unbalanced trade still exists, and humans will still participate in RWT.

 

I think the problem with RWT can be addressed. This is not to say that it won't require significant effort/expense on JaGex's part and the community's part to negate the issue.

[Guest jrhairychest]

I'm not even sure which proposition you're claiming to be supporting. All I saw (and thus responded to) were a poor attempt at invalidating an argument by claiming that the opposition 'would've said it anyways' - leaving the truth value of the opposition's proposition unaltered.

 

My take on the argument would be that there is definitely resentment within the f2p community - evidently seen in forum posts - but I cannot be certain as to whether it is dying of inactivity. Please don't confuse my position with the other posters on this thread.

 

As a sidenote, logical fallacies weaken arguments - the very term is an alternative to saying 'flawed reasoning'. If you profess prowess in debate, you ought to be capable of avoiding the said flawed reasoning - you can't just tell someone 'it doesn't cut it' - the strength of your own argument doesn't change when you exclaim it.

 

Let's not digress any further - did what you say invalidate what Makato said? I agree, we did not post any counter evidence. However, we're simply pointing out why the evidence may not work - and you have failed to invalidate it for approximately three times.

 

This argument feels a little like this;

 

Erewhon2 has stated on a number of occasions about F2P not being dead. New players are joining, talking and having fun and shes posted about chatting to them. She acquires screenshots of players in play. What benefit would she actually get by lying about it........? Exactly! Ive seen her take back a few things or make corrections if she knows shes wrong.

 

Makato has stated that he *doesnt play* and on a number of occasions F2P isnt fun therefore its going to die as no new players will want to play. This is the same F2P that he started with which seemed to be good enough for him. He likes to make decisions for potential players but he doesnt like being told that this is ridiculous and disappears. He doesnt want to acknowledge that the players in the screenshots could be newbie players because that wont support his viewpoint or change his point of view. He even now admits that F2P might not be quite dead as he thought. Hes no proof that Erewhon2 is lying and I know the motives behind Makatos reasoning from previous experience.

 

So Im making an informed point based on the evidence *and* the history/motives of both posters. So while you're focused on my "debating prowess" bear in mind that I'd already considered these points before you decided to jump in.

[Quyneax]

New players joining does not make F2P living, nor do talking and having fun. So even though the evidence is valid, it does not support the point (that F2P is not dead).

 

Unless you mean to say that F2P is not dead while at least 1 person per month registers or something.

[quitthegame]

New players joining does not make F2P living, nor do talking and having fun. So even though the evidence is valid, it does not support the point (that F2P is not dead).

 

Unless you mean to say that F2P is not dead while at least 1 person per month registers or something.

 

Well, that would indeed be one possible way to define it.

 

Kinda seems like you're blaming jrhairychest for terms introduced by Makoto being ill-defined here. Not sure how you think that's fair or reasonable?

 

Also, evidence of new players joining is indeed good evidence to contradict the point "no new players will want to play.", which is the crucial point in the discussion here. Not sure why you completely omit discussion of the crucial point, to talk about a side point in an unfair way?

[Assume Nothing]

New players joining does not make F2P living, nor do talking and having fun. So even though the evidence is valid, it does not support the point (that F2P is not dead).

 

Unless you mean to say that F2P is not dead while at least 1 person per month registers or something.

 

This raises the question; What constitutes a 'living' game? Is it the social interaction, or the figures of people playing, or the numbers of those subscribing, or the engagement required to play? Or maybe, could it be an alternate factor that I haven't accounted for?

 

I don't currently hold a position for the argument, since I lack sufficient knowledge regarding it and simply feel somewhat apathetic towards the subject in general. Does it matter whether f2p is allegedly 'dying' or not?

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

Erewhon2 has stated on a number of occasions about F2P not being dead. New players are joining, talking and having fun and she's posted about chatting to them. She acquires screenshots of players in play. What benefit would she actually get by lying about it........? Exactly! I've seen her take back a few things or make corrections if she knows she's wrong.

 

Makato has stated that he *doesn't play* and on a number of occasions F2P isn't fun therefore it's going to die as no new players will want to play. This is the same F2P that he started with which seemed to be good enough for him. He likes to make decisions for potential players but he doesn't like being told that this is ridiculous and disappears. He doesn't want to acknowledge that the players in the screenshots could be newbie players because that won't support his viewpoint or change his point of view. He even now admits that F2P might not be quite dead as he thought. He's no proof that Erewhon2 is lying and I know the motives behind Makato's reasoning from previous experience.

 

So I'm making an informed point based on the evidence *and* the history/motives of both posters. So while you're focused on my "debating prowess" bear in mind that I'd already considered these points before you decided to jump in.

 

Sheesh. I've had about enough of this.

 

Let me clarify my point one final time as to avoid any further confusion on your end. If you wish to take my point or my stance outside of my point in this current topic, then we will do so in PM. Take this to mean that any comment you make outside of my point will be replied to in PM, full stop.

 

*deep breath*

 

I've merely stated that the images that Erewhon2 has shown don't demonstrate or prove her case. It is easy to infer that those images could mean something else, such as pures training or gold farmers training. There's nothing in those images to suggest that these players are straight-up fresh to the game.

 

It doesn't matter if she wouldn't lie about it. Truth be told, I don't think she is. But what I'm saying is that her "evidence" doesn't fully support her claims.

 

As to your personal accusations, it seems only fitting that I give you a reply to them in private. Check your inbox at your leisure. It's not fair to the subject of this topic to reply to them in public.

[quitthegame]

I've merely stated that the images that Erewhon2 has shown don't demonstrate or prove her case. It is easy to infer that those images could mean something else, such as pures training or gold farmers training. There's nothing in those images to suggest that these players are straight-up fresh to the game.

 

 

If new pures don't count...then old pures don't count...so then isn't that a reason for Jagex to take off f2p accounts from high scores, they're mostly pures and bots? Hm. Seems logical to me.

 

So, do pures count or not? ;)

[quitthegame]

As a sidenote, logical fallacies weaken arguments - the very term is an alternative to saying 'flawed reasoning'. If you profess prowess in debate, you ought to be capable of avoiding the said flawed reasoning - you can't just tell someone 'it doesn't cut it' - the strength of your own argument doesn't change when you exclaim it.

 

Let's not digress any further - did what you say invalidate what Makato said? I agree, we did not post any counter evidence. However, we're simply pointing out why the evidence may not work - and you have failed to invalidate it for approximately three times.

 

With all that talk about fallacies, I'm sure you're aware it's a fallacy to refer to Erewhon's point as evidence, and Makoto's nonevidence as lack of "counter evidence". Makoto's point is the original point, therefore the responsibility is first upon him to provide evidence :)

 

 

Thanks for not committing that fallacy anymore :)

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

I've merely stated that the images that Erewhon2 has shown don't demonstrate or prove her case. It is easy to infer that those images could mean something else, such as pures training or gold farmers training. There's nothing in those images to suggest that these players are straight-up fresh to the game.

 

 

If new pures don't count...then old pures don't count...so then isn't that a reason for Jagex to take off f2p accounts from high scores, they're mostly pures and bots? Hm. Seems logical to me.

 

So, do pures count or not? ;)

 

I don't believe it is. If the premise is "new" player, then a pure is basically the account of an existing player.

[Sy_Accursed]

I've merely stated that the images that Erewhon2 has shown don't demonstrate or prove her case. It is easy to infer that those images could mean something else, such as pures training or gold farmers training. There's nothing in those images to suggest that these players are straight-up fresh to the game.

 

 

If new pures don't count...then old pures don't count...so then isn't that a reason for Jagex to take off f2p accounts from high scores, they're mostly pures and bots? Hm. Seems logical to me.

 

So, do pures count or not? ;)

 

I don't believe it is. If the premise is "new" player, then a pure is basically the account of an existing player.

 

You missed his point:

The argument seems to be f2p is/was mostly bots and pures.

If this is true then f2p is now mostly pures.

Therefore are not all the OLD f2p accounts still merely pures of people who play members.

And if pures don't matter as part of a live game why do they need to be on hiscores, thus rendering the point of if all f2p is pures why does it matter they not on hiscores?

[quitthegame]

 

I don't believe it is. If the premise is "new" player, then a pure is basically the account of an existing player.

 

 

Oh, I thought a pure was an account that intentionally limited one or more combat stats to keep total combat level low...seems like we need to start over and get our terminology sorted out.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

I've merely stated that the images that Erewhon2 has shown don't demonstrate or prove her case. It is easy to infer that those images could mean something else, such as pures training or gold farmers training. There's nothing in those images to suggest that these players are straight-up fresh to the game.

 

 

If new pures don't count...then old pures don't count...so then isn't that a reason for Jagex to take off f2p accounts from high scores, they're mostly pures and bots? Hm. Seems logical to me.

 

So, do pures count or not?

 

I don't believe it is. If the premise is "new" player, then a pure is basically the account of an existing player.

 

You missed his point:

The argument seems to be f2p is/was mostly bots and pures.

If this is true then f2p is now mostly pures.

Therefore are not all the OLD f2p accounts still merely pures of people who play members.

And if pures don't matter as part of a live game why do they need to be on hiscores, thus rendering the point of if all f2p is pures why does it matter they not on hiscores?

 

Perhaps I did. *revisits*

 

I disagree with the point in that not all F2P players are pures. There is a large quantity of them on there, no doubt, but I don't see how only having pures in F2P would justify removing highscores for all of F2P. Since playing on a pure is competition by restriction (i.e. you only allow yourself to have X Defense or X Attack or have X combat, etc), removing the competitive aspect of creating a pure doesn't seem intuitive.

 

To the original point I [thought] delapaz was making: I messed the initial definition of "pure" up. I'll revisit it: It's an account created with restrictions in mind for certain gameplay aspects, such as combat pures or skill pures, etc. My original counter was that a pure would not normally count as a new player. There are exceptions to this, of course, but in general, a pure isn't the same as a new player.

[Formerly_Deathknell]

Pures are mostly f2p because as a pure, you're omitting a large part of the game. f2p omits a large part of the game. They go hand in hand. :mellow:

 

And no, they don't count.

[Omali]

Pures are mostly f2p because as a pure, you're omitting a large part of the game. f2p omits a large part of the game. They go hand in hand. :mellow:

 

And no, they don't count.

 

I've found many pures prefer free to play combat because there's not as much variety to turn your character around. And also not paying for a second account, and the idea that combat pures probably don't train their non-combat skills a lot so there's no need for members only skills.

 

Is corrupt dragon armor still pretty much useless (in terms of cost) for PvP'ing in free to play?

[rsboy]

so glad they are doing something I love jagex!

[Formerly_Deathknell]

Pures are mostly f2p because as a pure, you're omitting a large part of the game. f2p omits a large part of the game. They go hand in hand. :mellow:

 

And no, they don't count.

 

I've found many pures prefer free to play combat because there's not as much variety to turn your character around. And also not paying for a second account, and the idea that combat pures probably don't train their non-combat skills a lot so there's no need for members only skills.

 

Is corrupt dragon armor still pretty much useless (in terms of cost) for PvP'ing in free to play?

 

Too rare for how long it lasts. Not worth the cash really.

[Kaida23]

Too rare for how long it lasts. Not worth the cash really.

That's been my opinion of them since they were first released. I'm not a fan of degrading armor/weapons, no matter how good their stats are.

[Guest jrhairychest]

New players joining does not make F2P living, nor do talking and having fun. So even though the evidence is valid, it does not support the point (that F2P is not dead).

 

Unless you mean to say that F2P is not dead while at least 1 person per month registers or something.

 

Well, that would indeed be one possible way to define it.

 

Kinda seems like you're blaming jrhairychest for terms introduced by Makoto being ill-defined here. Not sure how you think that's fair or reasonable?

 

Also, evidence of new players joining is indeed good evidence to contradict the point "no new players will want to play.", which is the crucial point in the discussion here. Not sure why you completely omit discussion of the crucial point, to talk about a side point in an unfair way?

I've re-read Quyneax's post a few times and I still don't understand it tbh.

 

Sheesh. I've had about enough of this.

 

Let me clarify my point one final time as to avoid any further confusion on your end. If you wish to take my point or my stance outside of my point in this current topic, then we will do so in PM. Take this to mean that any comment you make outside of my point will be replied to in PM, full stop.

 

*deep breath*

 

I've merely stated that the images that Erewhon2 has shown don't demonstrate or prove her case. It is easy to infer that those images could mean something else, such as pures training or gold farmers training. There's nothing in those images to suggest that these players are straight-up fresh to the game.

 

It doesn't matter if she wouldn't lie about it. Truth be told, I don't think she is. But what I'm saying is that her "evidence" doesn't fully support her claims.

 

As to your personal accusations, it seems only fitting that I give you a reply to them in private. Check your inbox at your leisure. It's not fair to the subject of this topic to reply to them in public.

 

Feel free to tell me anything I've said that isn't true. This is all based on posts that *you* have made, so I haven't made up anything, nor flamed you. Report it if it bothers you but don't keep pming me. I've told you once to keep it in the public domain.

 

Prove your case that these are pures and gold farmers. Anyone can be the armchair critic and dismiss it. That's easy. Prove that there's no new players coming into RS via F2P.

[Erewhon2]

New players joining does not make F2P living, nor do talking and having fun. So even though the evidence is valid, it does not support the point (that F2P is not dead).

 

Unless you mean to say that F2P is not dead while at least 1 person per month registers or something.

 

I thought I should respond to this, if new players joining F2P talking and having fun does not make F2P 'living'.....what does? I thought the the whole aspect of this part of the debate was that there were no new players coming in and therefore F2P was dead or dying. Hence my screenshots were to evidence that F2P was alive and well. I'm not sure how you can then class my evidence as being valid, yet not supporting the point? Either it's valid or it isn't.

 

Now I cannot easily prove that these are new players to RS, anymore than others can prove that they are 2nd accounts or gold farmers. Having said that I have chatted to people playing (I'm usually in the cow field at the moment turning bones to bananas), I have had people asking where the shop is, where is Varrock, where is the map, how do they find out what their combat level is, etc, etc...sound like new players to you? They certainly did to me.

 

I'm not on there that much but when I am, I'll try to capture some more random screenshots where people are speaking 'noob'.