zander459

Here is what I think is going on. This is just a wild guess based on logic - I have no inside information. I think they are about to release a new game that will be "linked" to Runescape. It has probably been developed specifically to be compatible with the RS engine (thus several of the recent engine updates - and their comments about the purpose of some of these being so they can bring better future updates). This would allow players the ability to move between the "games" in real time. It would also allow JaGex to avoid having two separate support staffs dealing with different engines. There will be an extra charge for getting to this new game, but if you pay this charge you will probably be able to access this new game through a "portal" in RS. Of course, if someone who is not an existing RS player wanted to access this game independently, I'm sure there would be a way to sign up independent of RS. This allows JaGex to give immediate access to this game to its entire existing RS customer base, and allows these customers to use their pre-existing payment methods to pay for this new game. This makes far more sense than launching an entire new standalone game that they would then have to market anew. You will probably be allowed to take your RS character into the new world, but you will probably lose all of your character's attributes in the new world (i.e., you may keep your character's name, but nothing else). However, I hold open the possibility that they will allow some character attributes to transfer (much like the fact that if you move from F2P to P2P, you keep all your F2P levels, but all of your "member's skills" levels start at zero). Allowing some skill transfer would provide an incentive for existing RS players to also pay for this new game. This structure would allow RS to potentially double its revenue in a very short period of time, and because it is doing this through an offering of a new game, it will meet with far less resistance than if it were to try to increase its revenue by simply doubling the monthly subscription fee for RS.

Afraid I have to agree. I'm done with this one...

No, my point was actually that Runescape is set up as a fantasy, specifically to be unlike real life and the real world. In fact, as Longest Mile hints at above, Runescape is a mishmash of various fantasies - you want a knight and a wizard from the times of King Arthur? Yep, we got that. You want a vampire from Transylvania? Yep, we got that. You want zombies from voodoo lore? Check, got those too. You want a werewolf? We got you covered. Would you like some evil mummies from ancient Egypt? Coming right up! How 'bout an ice queen, a phoenix, hellhounds, demons, trolls, faeries, sea monsters and characters from Norse legend? All present and accounted for - bunched together in this one little space. A bit ridiculous when you back away from it and give it a hard look but, hey, we take the game as we find it. So sure, you can try to make analogies between anything you want. If you want, you can try to make analogies between hot and cold, tall and short and clever and stupid. You can try to draw analogies between something that is "X" and something that specifically has been designed to be "Not X." However, these will not be strong analogies because any similarities, if they exist at all, are likely to be merely tangential, not fundamental. Your point seems to be that in real life people have tried to order their societies according to laws, rules and codes and that some people in Runescape have tried to do the same thing. Of course, you are right about that, but beyond pointing out that obvious fact, what are you trying to say, and how is it responsive to what Sausageman wrote in his article? What I was reacting to in my post were statements in your article like: "ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a good thing that the movement to preserve the purity of the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åanything goesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

With all due respect and (dare I say?) LOVE, and with no intention of flaming anyone, may I kindly point out that with regard to laws, moral codes and social contracts, drawing an analogy between Runescape and the Real World is flawed at its core? Maybe people have noticed that in Runescape there is a skill called "thieving" and that, if you are a really good thief, you can get a nice purple cape to wear that will bring you honour and respect as you walk through the land? In the real world, of course, thieving doesn't bring you honour and respect, it gets you locked up in prison because, after all, thieving is against the man-made laws of every country, and against every deity-made and man-made moral code of which I am aware. The whole point of Runescape is that it is a fantasy world where people go to get away from the real world. If Runescape's skills involved "studying," "working," and "cleaning," instead of magic, ranging and thieving, or if Runescape required that its players follow all real world laws and moral codes and abide by various social contracts, then the number of members would drop from 1 million to zero faster than you can say "Culinaromancer." Runescape is a game where people are free to act as they wish, limited only by the rules that have been made by the world's creators (JaGeX). It continues to bewilder me that players go into the wilderness to kill other players (!), then try to insist that a moral code or social contract should limit the actions of their intended victims, and when these intended victims don't act according to their expectations they get mad and start hurling insults. After all, out of all the square footage in Runescape, they have chosen to go into the one area where JaGeX has allowed players to kill other players and where, as they must know, the rules that they seek to impose on other players are not actually in effect. You may call this "emergent gameplay" if you wish. And, if groups of players are explicitly agreeing to these rules among themselves and aren't harrassing other players who either don't know about or don't agree with these rules, then I might agree with you. However, if these self-appointed rulemakers are harrassing other players over public and private chat, calling them names, etc., I don't call this "emergent game play" - I just call it "silly" - and you should too. This was (I believe) one of the main points of Sausageman's article which was addressed only in passing in the current article. Therefore, it is difficult to see the current article as actually being a "response" to many points that Sausageman made in his article.

Catbert - Exactly right. Unlike in days gone by, nowadays it is very rare to see people risking major items. If you exclude the single item that you get to keep by protecting item, most players now have 200K or less on them when they PK, and many have absolutely nothing. The reasons for this go beyond Sausageman's article, but suffice it to say that it is now very, very difficult to make more money on average per hour PKing than you can make, say, by spinning flax. Artificial Doom Flavor - You and I now agree on most points, which is a place that I didn't think we were going to get to. Because this is my last post on this topic, let me clarify a few things: First, whatever you and other "death matchers" want to agree to among yourselves should not be subject to criticism from other players. I, among others, would certainly stongly defend your right to make whatever rules you want to make among yourselves. I do, however, believe the following, based on my experience: 1. Most people who attack others in low level Edgy wildy never ask their victim to "fight" or suggest that certain rules are in effect. 2. If duelers/death matchers want to be sure that the other party is agreeing to fight in a certain way, in my view it would be best to say something like "Fight? DM Rules?" This puts the other player on notice that certain rules should govern the fight. In my view, simply saying "fight" doesn't put anyone on notice that certain rules are in effect. 3. You say that: "The expectation in Edgeville, however, is that you will fight by certain rules as a result of PKing there as opposed to say by the rune rocks." Your comments following this quote, which I won't re-quote here for the sake of space, clarify your feelings on this point and make it clear that you aren't necessarily adopting this position as your own, so I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing you personally by my following comments. However, the point you make here, I believe, gets to the crux of what Sausageman is talking about in his article. I believe that any such "expectation" is unjustified. I don't care where you are in the wildy, unless you have agreed with another player to fight a certain way, the only justified expectation is that each player will comply with JaGeX's wilderness rules, which are "anything goes." Let's talk about what really happens, on the ground, every day in low level Edgy wildy - and anyone who wants to dispute this can go find out for him/herself whether this is correct or not - just go stand at the wilderness border in a merchanting world for a half hour or so and watch. You will see many, many people of all levels (including many 110+s) running out of the wildy, and being called "nubs," you will see people praying, and being called "nubs," you will see people eating, and being called "nubs," you will see people "farcasting" and being called "nubs" and you will see people teleing, and being called "nubs." This is pretty constant - the other day, I counted, on the average, more than three "nub callings" a minute. Look, maybe I have an expectation that the sun isn't going to rise in the morning anymore. However, if the sun keeps on rising, day in and day out without fail, at some point it would be rational for me to reset my expecations to bring them in line with reality. That's pretty much how I feel about the people who stand around in low level Edgy wildy and, three times or so a minute, all day every day, call other players "nubs" for violating "rules" or frustrating "expectations" that do not, in the case of "rules," and should not, in the case of "expectations," exist in the first place. Even if these people can't grasp the obvious point that JaGeX hasn't appointed them the rulemakers of low level Edgy wildy, and even if they can't grasp the concept that they have absolutely no enforcement power over anyone who breaks their "rules" or defies their expectations (it being understood that the ability to whine and call others names doesn't amount to enforcement power), I would at least hope that they would have the capacity to observe that a huge number of players (at least three a minute, for example) don't accept the existence of any rules other than JaGeX's rules and, based on that observation, they would then have the intelligence and maturity to reset their expectations accordingly. To the contrary, though, these players just continue to whine and call other players names, thus adding to the juvenile and kiddie feel of the game. Oh well.

Now you would have people believe that before you "deulists" or "honour PKers" attack a person, you go up to them, specifically ask them if they want to be attacked, get their verbal agreement to same, get their agreement to the "rules" that you will fight by, and only then go at it. (Through saying "duel," or whatever.) If they decline, you peacefully walk away. Of course, almost everyone reading this would agree that, if that were the case, and someone actually understood the rules you were trying to impose upon them, agreed to them, but then turned around and violated them, you would have a right to be mad. However, if you want to throw around the language of informal logic, this one is called a "red herring." The set of circumstances you posit simply isn't the way things generally happen and isn't the main point of this discussion. So, while your argument has merit within the framework that you have seen fit to devise for yourself, you aren't addressing the larger issue and you continue to miss the point. It is obvious to anybody reading this that if they walked out in level 1-5 edgy wildy and just stood there, they would get attacked, and not by someone who is apparently as nice as you, who approaches them and first asks for their permission by requesting a duel and accordingly gets their agreement to some "social contract." In that context, where someone hasn't asked for permission and gotten the other person's agreement to fight, if you can't agree that once a person is attacked without provocation or agreement then "anything goes," there is simply no help for you. See, what happens in reality is that people come up to other players in low level Edgy wildy, attack them without any advance communication, then call them names if they don't fight according to some set of "rules" to which the other person has never agreed. Like I said earlier with respect to the name calling, have at it - I personally don't care except that, first, I think (and per Sausageman's article, I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone) that this kind of behaviour is silly and juvenile, and second this kind of playground name calling only contributes to RS becoming more and more a "kiddie" game. And just for the record, I'm not assuming that my enemies are incompetent. I KNOW that they are incompetent. I have looked up hundreds of them. You should well know that if you go PKing in Edgy tonight and look up the players around you, only a very, very small percentage of them will have 85 mage. I guess we could make a rule that would say something like: If an enemy actually does have 85 mage, and is wearing gear that one could reasonably would allow such enemy to cast teleblock sucessfully, then teleing away isn't permitted. Otherwise, teleing away is fine. How well do you think this "rule" would be accepted among Edgy PKers? And yes, I think it is extremely lame and (in your terminology) "dishonorable" for someone who doesn't have 85 mage or who can't be bothered to carry the runes to expect me not to tele when I haven't agreed not to. Sausageman said it well: "If you don't want people to teleport, get 85 mage and teleblock them, or stop messing around in low level wild entirely. If you don't want people to pray, Smite them. If you don't want them to run, entangle them. If you don't like them using cheap armour, go down to the Duel Arena and fight with fixed stakes. If you don't want one-itemers to attack you, change worlds. If you can't kill someone before they get away, it doesn't mean they're a noob or "dishonourable". It means they're craftier than you are and maybe, just maybe, you're just not good enough."

Koolasamoose - You are right, of course, but what you said will go right over many of these people's heads. Lord knows, I've tried to make the point before in this thread to no avail. Along the lines of what you are saying, some of these people also want to march out the idea of a "social contract," which, of course, is utter nonsense. I'm not a member of their "society," and have never agreed to any such "social contract." Neither have most players in RS. In any event, these people can't even agree AMONG THEMSELVES what the rules of the supposed contract are. In the meantime, they throw around big words like "honour" and "respect" so that, if you don't agree with their point of view, they can call you "dishonourable" or "disrespectful." See, they think that sounds bad, so they try to control your behaviour by calling you names. Of course, as you point out, they never go back and actually bother to define what is meant by "honour" or "respect" except to imply that what they do is "honourable" and deserving of "respect," and what you do isn't. In their upside down world, my opponent in a fight asks me, with a straight face, to pretend like they are a level 85 mage who has sucessfully teleblocked me - even though they have neither the mage level or the runes to cast the spell - and in their world view somehow asking for this accommodation is deemed "honorable." On the other hand, if I instead throw back the curtain on this fallacy, point out to the world that they really only have 40 mage and aren't even carrying any runes, and tele away, I have behaved "dishonorably." Hey, I've got a "social contract" proposal! Even though you're only a level 40 mage because you've spent all your time training strength, I'll pretend that you've teleblocked me if you let me hit you three times for every one time you hit me. And, by the way, you can't eat. I mean, since we're sliding down the slippery slope to fantasyland, let's just go wild with it. By the way, Koolasamoose, lest you want to take this further, understand that if you call them on it, and ask them who at JaGeX appointed THEM the rulemakers of RS, and what they are going to do if you violate this non-existent "social contract" or this "code of honour" that doesn't really exist in the first place, they say something like: "We can't alter your behavior but we can certainly slice you up right nice" -- which makes no real sense, but which I interpret to mean: "We acknowledge that we have no authority to make rules and we have no enforcement power over any other player, but if you do something we don't like we're going to insult you in the game." Well, so what? You know, from the time I started playing RS several years ago to this very night, I have seen people called n00bs in the wildy. Does anyone think, a year from now, this will have stopped? Of course not. So, I say, if it makes you feel good, go ahead and call other players "n00bs" or "safer n00bs" or "farcaster n00bs" or "pray n00bs" or whatever. Do this till your heart is warm, full and contented. In fact, if this brings you joy, then the upcoming years should be joyful ones for you. Given how RS is growing, there should soon be lots more people around for you to call n00bs. So, have at it. And remember, every time you call someone a n00b for violating some code of conduct that exists only in some fever dream fantasy world you have created in your own mind, you make a new friend and bring RESPECT and HONOUR to yourself....or do you?

Sausageman's article was the most coherent and well reasoned editorial that I've read on this site in quite some time. Not a single proponent of "honour" pking has put forth a sensible counterargument to it. Sure, lots of people have puffed out their chests (I'm a better PKer than you, so I know better....I've played longer than you, so I know better...You must not be a PKer at all...) but these statements are meaningless and don't address the points that Sausageman made. There is a kernel of truth in what Flamemaker89 said, but its something that these "honour" pkers don't want to accept: the very practice of "Edgeville Pking," as it has developed over the years and as it currently exists, is flawed. People want to go to level 1-5 wildy, right next to a safe zone, and then complain when someone runs into the safe zone. They don't want to have to use entangle or an ice spell to keep their opponents from running, either because they don't have the magic level, they haven't done desert treasure, or they don't want to "waste" the inventory space on the runes. They also don't want to go into deeper wildy, where it is much more difficult for their opponent to run into a safe zone, because that's too dangerous for them. Their solution is to try to set up this system where everyone is required to just stand there and act like they are entangled or frozen, even though they aren't. People don't want to have to use teleblock, because they can't be bothered to get 85 Magic or because they don't want to use the 3 inventory spaces for a spell, but then they complain when someone teles from a fight. So, their solution is to try to set up this system where everyone is required to act like their opponent has 85 magic and has teleblocked them, even though they haven't. No reasonable person lets their opponent set rules of a fight if those rules work to the person's disadvantage. I don't do that in the duel arena, and I'm sure not going to do that in the wildy. Do you really expect me to abide by these "rules" that disadvantage me and might lead to my unnecessary death? Are you completely out of your mind? I'm playing JAGEX's game, not your game. I'm not going to act like I'm teleblocked when I'm not. I'm not going to act like I'm entangled when I'm not. You have absolutely no authority to make these supposed "rules," and you have absolutely no recourse against anyone if they tele on you or run. Its up to your judgment and ability as to whether or not you use the necessary spells to stop someone from teleing or running. If you have the power to stop your opponent from teleing or running, but you don't, then you have only yourself to blame. If you don't have the power to stop them in the first place then, for goodness sake, shut up. If you want to teleblock me, then you had best get the magic level and use the runes to do it. I'm not going to act like you are a level 85 mage when you aren't, and I'm not going to act like you have sucessfully cast teleblock on me, when you haven't. I have won many, many fights by a combination of teleblocking/entangling/ranging/meleeing/charged sara striking despite the "waste" of inventory spaces. I don't leave the behaviour of my opponent to chance, or assume that he's going to follow some "honour" rules that don't really exist in the first place. I take CONTROL over my opponent and STOP him from doing things I don't want him to do. It can be done. The fact that you can't be bothered to do it isn't my problem . At some point, you are going to have to realize that there are things in this game that irritate you and that you can't control, just like in real life. I don't like arrow thieves, but a long time ago I realized that I had no power over them, and that I had to adjust my OWN behaviour accordingly by picking up my arrows more frequently. When my arrows got taken in spite of that, I just had to put on my big boy underwear and deal with it. It would be best if these "honour Pkers" would do the same.

First, I'm afraid you've got a bit of a reading comprehension problem. I stated very clearly above that my name on these forums isn't my RS name. Go back and read my post again, slowly, and maybe you'll pick up on it this time. There wasn't a RS player with this name when I set this forum account up. There may be one now. I don't know, I don't care, and it's not material to our discussion. Also, go back and read your post. You are still talking about why these rules "are in place." Again, there are NO SUCH RULES in place. I get the fact that you think its not nice when people safe, pj, pk in junk and safe. You made that real clear. Some players agree with you, others don't. I actually agree with you that some of this behavior isn't very nice. But so what? I don't think its nice when I'm ranging and people take my arrows. It makes me mad. But Jagex has made it clear that this isn't stealing or breaking the rules in any way. So, although I don't respect the arrow thieves, I don't delude myself into thinking that some rules "are in place" to keep them from stealing my arrows, or that I, together with any group of my friends, has the authority to make any such "rules." Even if I were subject to such a delusion, at some point I would realize that whatever rules I decided to make would fail due to my inability to enforce them in any way against the violators.

That's really funny. When you can't deal with the arguments on a logical basis, you start attacking the person himself by saying he is "not actually a PKer" and saying that he "knows nothing of PKing" and "doesn't know what respect means." All very untrue, of course, and all very weak.

No, when I'm PKing what I want to do is to kill other players in the game. And I do this regularly, regardless of whether they eat or pray or try to tele. As you admit, you have no power to enforce any rules against any other player. Therefore, all this talk about honour rules, etc., is just a bunch of drivel. If these so-called "rules" exist at all, it is only for those players who mutually and voluntarily choose to abide by them, and given the number of n00b callings I see in the wildy every day, I would say that there isn't a very high rate of compliance. The bottom line is that I don't at all ascribe to your concept of "honour." In fact, in my view you are trying to hijack that word, which is a loaded term, so that you can call anyone who doesn't abide by your wishes "dishonourable." Playing by the rules that Jagex has set up for the game is in no way dishonorable, and calling it that doesn't make it so.

Jitterboogie - I'm afraid that it is you who is completely missing the point. It is incredibly presumptuous and foolish of you or any group of players to try to make up rules and apply them to other players. Nobody has given you the authority to do this and, moreover, it is incredibly ineffective because you have absolutely no power to enforce those rules. JAGEX has designed the game in a certain way, and has set up a certain set of rules. Clearly, JAGEX intends the "supplies" in the game to be used by players. However, if someone actually uses the "supplies" of the game to foil you in a fight, or to make the fight last longer than you, in your great wisdom, think it should last, you start complaining about a "mass waste of supplies". Look, if you have a problem with the way the official game rules are set up, you should take it up with JAGEX or, if you want, quit. But there is absolutely nothing unfair, mean or "selfish" about other players using whatever resources are at their disposal to win a fight or avoid being killed. And you still haven't answered my question from my prior post. Just accept for a minute that in fighting you with prayer, eating, etc., I am honestly playing the game the way I want to, and in the way that I think JAGEX intended. I'll accept for the sake of argument that you don't like this. How are you going to stop me? You are going to try to hurt my feelings by calling me "selfish?" On what basis? Because the method by which I am trying to kill you (!) doesn't show proper respect for your limited stock of supplies? That's laughably silly. Or you are going to pray back at me, eat, etc.? Well, that certainly doesn't stop me from doing what I am doing, and it doesn't bother me in the least. I think that's exactly the way the game should be played, and your behaviour will just amuse me because I will be watching you violate your own "rules" in a failed attempt to enforce them. So why don't you try again.

Let me ask you "rule" proponents a question: If I am fighting you, and I do something that is against your supposed "rules" (whichever version of these rules you happen to be using at the time, it being understood that even the people ON THIS THREAD can't agree as to what these supposed rules actually are) then how exactly are you going to stop me? Would one of you people who are going on and on about these "rules" please just pause for a moment from your extreme PKing and answer that one, simple question? I'm serious. I think it would help the discussion along. Can someone please enlighten me, because in all the PKing I have done, and that's a lot (FYI, my name here is random and isn't my RS name), in not ONE SINGLE FIGHT has my opponent ever been able to stop me from fighting exactly how I wanted to. Please let me know exactly what enforcement power you think you have over me. And, no, the fact that you can call me a n00b right before I kill you isn't quite enough to make me toe the line. And the fact that you can turn your pray on too, or eat too, or "farcast" too, doesn't cut it either because, after all, then you are playing by MY rules, not yours, and that's just fine by me. Although I am eagerly awaiting your response, for the moment I am off to Varrock, where my friends and I have instituted a "No Rune Boots in Varrock" rule. You had better not wear your rune boots in Varrock any more. If you do, then my friends and I are going to follow you around and call you a n00b because, even though it seems to be completely within the official rules of the game, we believe that wearing rune boots in Varrock is unsightly and should not be tolerated.

Gee, I don't understand basic supply/demand theory? I guess my advanced degrees in economics were for naught then. :-( Oh well.... Given the fact that you seem to be predisposed to condescending to other posters, I spent a few minutes looking at your price data chart just now. I should have looked at this before I responded to your first post to get an idea about to whom I was speaking. I wouldn't have bothered responding. The chart is complete rubbish, of course, and is as useless as it is wrong. You pretend to have all of this data that you just don't have, and you try to turn your speculation into fact. The data here are unknowable by anyone by JAGEX. You are plotting "prices" on the chart, as if you know these numbers. You don't, and you just make yourself look foolish when you act like you do. Without good data, which you will never get, you are chasing something ethereal that you will never catch, and you'll just keep convincing yourself of the truth of your own speculations along the way. Others, such as me, will remain unimpressed. But I hope you have fun.

Duke - You aren't making much sense to me, and I guess I'm not making much sense to you, so I'll end the discussion. First, though, I will try to clarify one thing. You say that: "It is impossible in both rs AND rl to really determine the supply and demand of various products -> that doesn't make the basic price equilibrium theory untrue in any way though." In a real world economy, huge amounts of data are generated regarding actual supply and demand for commodities. I review such data every day. Suppliers adjust their supplies and prices based on these data. In the stock market, you can look at trading screens that show very detailed information regarding the volume and price of every actual and pending trade. I won't debate with you whether a "whip" is more like a loaf of bread or a stock, but I will note that all whips are made by the same manufacturer (JAGEX), and are completely fungible, whereas bread is made from different recipes by different manufacturers and isn't fungible. My point is that you have no objectively verified data on how many whips are either created or sold on a given day or the prices at which they are sold. Therefore, you are unable to test how closely price movement is correlated with supply and demand in this virtual economy. You're just speculating. Of course, I do expect that there is some correlation, as I pointed out in an earlier post, but I note that prices in the rare market, where there is a finite supply that is actually declining, have fallen. In your world view, this indicates that less people must want the most elite status symbols in the game. In my world view, I think the lack of a transparent market forces buyers and sellers to make decisions that are based on their PERCEPTION of fair prices than on actual supply and demand. I'll end it there, and move on to other things. All the best.