quitthegame

wish I'd bought chins when they were cheaper too. I'll probably hunt them myself, I need the hunt xp anyway. "meme    [meem] noun 1. a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes. "

Well, they can't really just wave a magic wand and become a fee-paying F2P community, they'd have to lobby Jagex to implement some kind of system for that. Perhaps one where they get members bank size, no ads on F2P worlds, and show on highscore as "special F2P only contributor"-- but can't log in to members worlds, use members skills/items, and on official forums they show as "f2pworld membership" or something. Obviously someone in an F2P community isn't going to want to buy membership without that, they'll look like they "cheated" or whatever you'd call it. So if your question is meant to be exactly that: why aren't the "serious" f2p'ers lobbying for such a system, if it's not about not paying for the game...then yes, I agree completely, why aren't they? I'd argue that they feel entitled after this long. I guess I'm confused by this statement. If money is the issue, it throws out ONE argument, that it's not about the money. How does it throw out "all the other arguments"? That argument isn't even all that common.

There's obviously some % of people who don't pick up bones/hides in Kuradel's dungeon on blues because their gold income /hr is enough to justify doing so. There's another % who do so because they are lazy/enjoy playing that way. What no one is talking about, that I can see, is the possibly large % who leave bones/hides on the ground because they are blindly emulating the actions of the >11m hour bone/hide leavers, and not their reasoning. The tendency to think "My friend is really rich and he doesn't pick up bones, so I shouldn't either", is a basic irrational tendency in humans. This covers, I believe, a very large number of people, not only in RS, but in all aspects of life. These are the people that threads like this can help. The general rule, that while it is valuable for a novice in something to observe experts, it's important not to blindly emulate them without thinking it through and finding out how they progressed to where they are, is a pretty useful life lesson in general. Not really a fan of the idiots calling thing, although I can understand wanting to vent some anger on all those people calling people picking up bones and/or hides poor noobs.

"The bottom line is, the economic state of emergency is the way to go." But another meme is appropriate here--You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Unbuyable on the GE is a term that comes from when there were strict upper and lower limits on the prices on the GE. It no longer applies. Grey chins currently insta-buy at 1424 each. Red chins currently insta buy at 1750. That means they are buyable. Everything is buyable, except for items that are above the 2.1B max gold stack, or items that are so rarely used that no one is listing them at the moment. Chins obviously don't fall under either of the above categories. You just weren't willing to even test buy 1 at a high price to find out the price, for some highly odd reason. That issue aside, high prices benefit chin hunters and discourage chin ranging. If you're not hunting chins at least a few times a week, how could you say that prices are too high? They're not even high enough to get you hunting chins! Doesn't make sense, sir.

Are you referencing free-trade removal? :P The thing about free-trade removal for me, was that the GE price determination algorithm, whatever it was, seemed like utter shite to me. Certain items, that you could barely buy at max, would not move at all, or even go down on rare occasion. The ironic thing is now that the GE price mechanisms are so much more free and it doesn't matter that much what the med price is, only now does the med price actually do a decent job tracking the street price. This bad algorithm A. caused normal players problems as those items were difficult to trade. B. enabled RWT by letting people balance trades with well-picked items whose street value differed from the GE value enough. The whole wildy/76k'ing thing was another problem, but that a more easily fixable problem imo, just a minor amount of attention to risk/reward curves would prevent sweet spots like that. I often wonder why the botnuke seems technically sound but they couldn't get the math right during nonfree trade ~_~ Just get whoever programmed the botnuke to do the rwt nuke this time :P But yea, I think they've abandoned that idea for now.

Nope, already asked him, he said that the time is not yet ripe for a Liam Neeson-like rampage. Good news though, he did tell me that they will use the money saved from F2P hiscore removal to hire Liam Neeson himself for said rampage. :thumbsup: There is one method of eliminating RWT though, that is bound to work. We just have to wait for real world currencies to devalue enough so that RS gold is actually worth more than RW currency. This won't actually eliminate RWT, but since RS gold will be the better currency, it will be renamed VWT, virtual world trading, at which point Jagex will encourage it but the national tax services will attempt to ban it. Ha ha, no seriously though, all this RWT talk makes me think of all the dicers raging on the O-forums about dicing removal. They all said "don't even talk to me about dicing leading to RWT, Jagex could easily ban RWT's if they wanted to". I always thought in response--then why haven't you been banned yet? *rimshot* It's all jokes and laughs, but it's funny because it's mostly true. Except the Liam Neeson part, MMG would never turn down that glory.

I didn't lump anyone, that was jrhairy. You could give feedback in a different way that would be less likely to lead people to label you, you just don't want to, apparently. Took me about 15 seconds to find a quote of you calling Jagex "eye-gougingly stupid" or whatever it was. Still, that's fairly restrained compared to most of the others he mentioned. hearing both sides of the debate is one thing; moving the people saying they hope Jagex burns in hell--or that Runescape dies quickly-- to the rants forum where they clearly belong, isn't really losing any side of anything one might reasonably term a debate. I'd find it much easier to sympathize with you saying you were personally attacked, if you hadn't been using much harsher language than any directed towards you, towards Jagex and it's developers. I think you might want to consider that dichotomy, and rethink why you're still posting so often here despite apparently having quit playing RS some time ago?

Really, you don't think "~Mr. D. V. "That's it; Jagex blew it; R.I.P. RuneScape & Jagex, 2011-11-21; May they burn in hell." Devnull" qualifies as anti-jagex? If you don't want to be lumped in with that crowd, just because you think Jagex is being "eye-gougingly stupid", then that's ok. But there are multiple people in this thread calling for Jagex to suffer fates worse than mere death. If that doesn't qualify as anti-Jagex, then nothing does. He's only allowed to make suggestions that exactly mirror yours? How does that make sense? How does that jibe with "agree to disagree"? If there were a forum for only people who enjoy Runescape and don't want Jagex to burn in hell, I would prefer it to this one. How is that different from moving people who don't fit into that category into rants, anyway? Isn't that just a semantical difference?

[quote name='Formerly_Deathknell' timestamp='1321997443' post='5103244' You complain about us, but you seem to be the one I always see whining. Tu quoque fallacy. But I agree with you to a point, best thing for him to do is to wait a few weeks, see if all the "jagex should go burn in hell" posters are still here, or if you'll realize that posting on a RuneScape fansite is a strange thing for someone who ostensibly hates RS to do. Time solves most problems.

You're trying to incite players to quit RS? Yes, getting everyone to quit RS is the only way from preventing Jagex from making decisions that are so bad that everyone will quit RS, because it would be horrible if everyone quit RS and the end justifies the means, or in this case, becomes the opposite of the means through trickery of the best kind. What, that logic isn't clear enough for you? He called Jagex totalitarian, so I think we can call that close enough to Godwin's Law. He also called the average player of RuneScape "dumb as heck". He hates Jagex for not respecting the common runescape player and being totalitarian, but he calls the average runescape player "dumb as heck", so he doesn't respect them either. So because he thinks the same way Jagex does, he's going to rescue them from driving all "dumb as heck" runescape players away from RS, by convincing them all to stop playing RS first, before they can stop playing RS. Let's make an analogy. This is like the scene in Moulin Rouge where the director tells Satine that "you must hurt him to save him", except in the version where it's a surrealist comedy and he tells her "you must kill him to save him", and then a long dream scene ensues in which everything up to this point is revealed to have been the imaginations of a fevered Dalmation. I hope this clears things up for you. I have a theory actually, it's that the people writing this kind of stuff read what tripsis wrote about "jagex doesn't mind constructive criticism" and then they get angry and start comparing Jagex to nazis, as above. He threw the gauntlet down, and they responded with vigor. Probably the same reason why Ken Genosis posted in the fashion he did, his points in the f-mod forums were ignored, so he blew up in the general forums. No one enjoys being ignored.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not objecting to you quitting, I'm saying that writing an article about how the game is dying right as you're quitting is a huge cliche in MMOdom. Heck, remove that concept from MMO's and it's probably a cliche thousands of years old. Perhaps that doesn't bother you. The point I'm trying to make that you might have missed is that RS is a very old game already, you talking about them trying to grow and establish the game sounds funny to the listener, as if you were telling us about how your grandfather will never grow up to be big and strong if he doesnt' eat his broccoli. Jagex's plans for the next 10 years already account for RS dying and being replaced, I'd wager.

Sees_all's article: Sorry, but anyone who proclaims they're quitting the game and then writes a forum post or editorial detailing why the game they're quitting will also soon die is committing the ultimate MMO forum cliche. Perhaps you didn't know that, but it's a real faux pas :( I could respond point by point to your vague claims with reams of data about profitability and lifespan of various MMOs and their payment structures, but I'll just make one amusing point. You claim that "RuneScape may stick around for several years, but unless Jagex supports the business model that brought them so much success, it won't be around for much longer."--several years? Converting from MMO years to human years, that's like saying RuneScape, currently aged 250 years old, will only live to be 400 years old. How is that even a criticism or negative conclusion?

To me justifying their actions could mean either being transparent, or lying, as long as the goal was to make their actions appear correct. I didn't think you were being deceptive, I just read your statement as being a bit unclear in that regard. Well, this was mainly referring to the fact that many nontransparent organizations are nontransparent because they are in fact doing some awfully shady stuff that they're keeping hidden, and that if you're making an argument based on their own good than you would be incorrect to conclude that they should be more transparent. My personal opinion/guess is that Jagex is hiding the motives here because their motives are to cut costs, and they don't want to admit that they were caught flat-footed at how much their customer base would drop after the botnuke, which doesn't really fall into the scenario above, but it's just my own guess so I don't think I'm only playing devil's advocate to raise that point here. To rephrase the statement above with less negatives: "If the actions or motivations being hidden now would result in more disloyalty upon being revealed than is currently being caused by hiding them, then that statement is false, right?" Don't think that's really any clearer, but there it is.

Justifying their actions =/= being transparent. "a lack of transparency is likely to result in consumer disloyalty, especially those actions which adversely affect players." If the actions being hidden by lack of transparency would result in more disloyalty upon being revealed than the current nontransparent state, then that statement is false, no?

That makes sense. Still, that leaves the issue that this poll is a self-selected and therefore likely unrepresentative sample of players, voting from a position of relative ignorance. (If you accept the seemingly common assumption that the FAQ was a load of meaningless spin, then we have no real information on why Jagex is doing this. Of course , if you accept the FAQ unquestioningly, then you must accept that their move is popular, since it says so. :P There is obviously a middle ground between those two possibilities, how large it is, that's another question entirely )

The poll says 80% when I look at it. The poll is obviously unreliable, as are all self-selected polls.

Well I don't think it's a bogus reason, I think it's a real reason, it's just not one of the top three reasons for doing it. As to your point that they should have refrained from saying anything...well that's what they did at first, isn't it? The FAQ didn't come out till days later, iirc. So they did attempt to follow your advice there, but so many players have unrealistic expectations that a storm of protests formed.

Yea, if we could just convince everyone who ever botted to log in to their botted accounts while using a broken bot that they are fully aware will get that account insta-banned, then I believe Jagex could live up to their claimed ability and clear them all at the pace of thousands per minute using their new automated software tools. Can't say I see that happening, sadly.

Because making a poll took 30 seconds... You mad bro? I would venture to observe that it is indeed you who appears filled with vitriolic choler, my angry brother-in-arms.

After an update, bot owners probably check with new level 3 bots to see how the detection system is. So, thousands upon thousands of them were created, and quickly banned, rinse/repeat. Doesn't that seem likely? Can't see how that's relevant to this discussion.

Anyone can make an F2P account, so anyone has equal say/power over F2P. Which basically amounts to roughly negative 500 say/power units.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US, if someone asks a corporate officer a question, and the answer is proprietary corporate information, and by answering honestly you would damage the future profit earning potential of the company, you open yourself up to civil liability and possibly even criminal prosecution by answering honestly. If that bothers you, take it up with your elected representatives, not Jagex. Now, we don't know if that applies here or not, because most of what we have on this situation is Jagex's dishonest FAQ, but it might, right?

It does. But it is insignificant. Guild Wars was an MMO with no subscription fee, and the servers are still all up until this day. They've even published an article on how MMO's don't require subscription fees in order to pay for server costs. EVE published an article about how they use incredibly expensive military server hardware to run so many players in one world. I guess I mentioned my article last so we'll pretend that one applies 100% until someone posts a different one.

Can I install a camera in your bedroom? You know, so I can see what you're doing behind closed doors. ~_~ No offense intended, but I can't agree that it's unfortunate that people can't see through closed doors.

If that's the case, then why not simply say so instead of trying to cover us in truckloads of manure about bots? Exactly. Why not simply say so? That is the question people should be asking, not ranting about Jagex's poor logic. My analysis was the same as lordkafei's, this seemed like a clear bandwidth cutting move on Jagex's part instantly upon reading about it. But, why cover that up? If they are covering it up, they definitely have a reason. Poor publicity driving players away causing a negative feedback cycle? They don't want bad news to get out and drive stock prices down? (Is jagex even publicly traded? Maybe they're prepping for an IPO if not.) The hordes of people getting angry on forums about Jagex not being straight with them really make me shake my head. Straight with you means straight with their competitors, anyone possibly trying a hostile takeover, etc. They tell you as much as they can, when they can. If you want to know every single detail about someone, try marrying them, or adopting them, something to justify those kinds of expectations. Blizzard is notorious about hiding as much as they can, and they are just pouring out money from every orifice. if Jagex isn't doing as well, they'll hide twice as much--leading to incidents like this. Blizzard releases a new pet every month that costs 25 dollars and sells a million of them. Imagine the outcry if Jagex released a pet for 3 dollars and half a stick of gum. The supposedly free LoL has more pay2win features than you could fit in F2P's bank space. Get some perspective, or find a new game.