Solidus_77

that, in my opinion, is a perfectly sufficient reason :

for effectiveness, well obviously it's 8/10 and would be 9/10 without the d med (neizigot-whatever helm is better IMO). I always thought d med looked ugly tbh. Fashion-wise, 5/10 Sorry, but I'm really not a fan of huge thick armor as a "cool outfit", it's effective and makes you look fit for battle, but also a bit too bulky. Many outfits are good for looks and not for stats. Moonclan, naval, pirate, karamja outfits all have neat looks and sometimes by combining various pieces you can get some really neat themes or outfits.

Thanks for all your encouraging comments, if you're a senior you'll understand that college aps creates quite a workload :wall: I'll try and update it a few times That, my friend, is a good question. Consider the following things: Which skill is easier (or harder) to do? Which skill costs more (or less)? Which skill gives more respect? Which skill do I like better? The decision is ultimately yours, this is some food for thought. That's a good idea, originally I was going to make this exclusively a "how to do the mental side of goals", however they could find their place over in planning section. Couple hours (counting revisions). But the ideas are spread out over my 3 massive-goal achievement [bleep]es. First, over a year ago, when rcing to 91 rc I started to see the basics behind these tips. Then, last january, while going for 99 con I got more experience seeing these things at work and finally, my recent 99 rc through the abyss was where I really understood the value of self-confidence.

I hate those sort of merchants, buying any item in the game but always for a ridiculously low price. I'm bookmarking this page just so I can come back in a year and remember when shards were worth more than 150k.... He means low compared to the current price, genius :roll:

I know you didn't, that's why I pointed it out.

Erm just sellers and buyers spending more time to find the other party they needed to trade with? It's also impossible. There is a demand for convenience and therefore there is also a supply. Could you realize how catastrophic that would be? To put it simply, a hell of a lot more "how can I make money?" threads.

Whether you like it or not, this is a debate although due to the constant personal insults throwing around and the flame baiting that may change. It's my assessment based on facts, explanations and analysis. Something you have failed to do throughout this entire debate. Don't agree with them? Then prove them wrong instead of saying "oh well that's your opinion" because that doesn't dismiss their validity. You knew him before I did. So what? I neither know nor care about your feud, however when you don't answer to the various arguments and you decide to personally attack, bait, blatantly evade arguments or any sort of cowardly response that does not respond directly the the points presented in the person's argument then I do have a problem. Basically, ego comes up with several theories, one of which is about discontinued items dropping in price. We say he is wrong and post some detailed explanations, the rest needs not to be mentioned... First of all, cut out the -40%, it's obviously based on nothing and just a random statistic you threw in. Second of all, you've got your facts all messed up. A decrease in inflation means that there is much less inflation which means that there is more price stability. Although it sounds like you expected the value of the currency to change in some way or another. Either way you're wrong, because the GE is not going to change the money supply and therefore not going to change the price index by any significant amount. If you're expecting prices to all rise by 1.5, don't get your hopes up. Finally, like I have said to others, this is all speculation and the way that the great exchange functions will GREATLY affect the results so don't say things like "they should re-think this idea" because they know more than any of us at this point.

"def noobs", "pray noobs" and "safers" make the best monster hunters tbh :wink:

Of his entire post, the only part that you could reply to was his last few words? :roll: I already stated why in my first post. There's nothing obsessive about debating, might I remind you that you're doing the exact same thing? If you don't want to debate, don't make such crack theories or such. Now you've made them, stop trying to back off. Saying that I can have my opinions doesn't change the fact that your opinions are flawed and you conclusions are not based on facts. I've debated with duke freedom and so I find that assessment very hard to believe. I haven't always agreed with him, but he's one of a few people who not only KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS economic theory but also displays it in a very coherent way and even with comes up with some raw data to support his theories. So far, debates with him have been all about challenging the other person's theories which is exactly what a debate should be. You are almost the exact opposite. You come up with crack theories based on almost complete speculation and without a visible train of thought. Clearly you have little knowledge of how economics works and I am sick to death of your various accusations or reasons as to why you refuse to respond to a particular point. Well generally to debate economics it helps to know about economics :roll:

good god, how do people find these things out so fast? :shock: ring of visibility for each new quest or something?

A HELL OF A LOT less people would have jobs or less income: Pure ess miners, Flax collectors & spinners, Nature runecrafters (not to mention 91 rc, the best skiller income, is ruined) and even green d hide collectors. Merchants of any of the goods presented above. Those are the most reputable jobs among skillers, and some jobs suitable for beginner players who have few skills but what a relatively high income. I just can't believe people are insane enough to condemn alchemy, condemn ALL of those jobs all in the name of stopping an "inflation problem" that doesn't exist in this situation. Then think of all these skills which would be unpopular, and what they would lead to. No reason to go past 65 rc so bye bye law company. Bye bye all the easy things that you could do while standing around alching. Due to the dramatic decrease in income, goods of conspicuous consumption (a.k.a. goods that we buy to show off) will all decrease in value. These are things like partyhats, expensive armor... to each his own, but you get the idea, luxury goods. Finally, on a macroeconomic point of view. We sure as hell got price stability (not that it was a problem anyways), but the trade off was a massive blow to the objective of full employment. Then the lack of production means economic growth is set-back a long ways.

So you don't know what the value was before or after, all you know is that you made it increase? Is it even possible to be less credible than that? :roll: Presenting an image in the hopes of misleading other people is a blatant form of price manipulation. You even confessed earlier about forming a group with your friends to control or manipulate the prices of robin hood hats, which is another obvious form of price manipulation. This is your way of justifying price manipulation? :-s . Real life and runescape may have a lot in common economically, however the rules defined by society are very different. Besides, cartels are in fact illegal, and groups of people who get together and agree on prices are illegal. I've said this too many times: Prove it. The fact still remains that they are invalid and baseless speculations and each time I demonstrated why. I will take my freedom to do what I want and what I want right now is to expose these theories for what they are worth. If it is, why mention it? My god, he might even use valid and coherent arguments or even possibly some explanations :o. That aside, I despise when people use underhanded tactics in a debate like personal attacks or accusations instead of coming forth with better arguments. What you said right here points in that direction, and what you need to be doing is taking duke freedom's arguments point by point and explaining why he is wrong (if you can, that is).

How is a bank screen shot going to prove that the act of buying blue partyhats tripled their value? And also from what value to what value? In light of recent information, the only thing your bank can speak of is how effectively you were able to manipulate prices. Judging by your story, you didn't even understand that SOMETHING that you did or said had an effect on people which consequently affected prices. Succeeding to manipulate prices in the past does not mean you will succeed in monopolizing a certain good. Monopolies have nothing to do with organized attempts to manipulate the price. Getting a group of people together and all deciding to form a cartel is, as duke freedom stated, against the rules. Through your various contradictions, baseless speculations, crack theories (not to mention you not understanding what a monopoly is), you have effectively proven and clearly demonstrate that vast wealth does not imply a better knowledge of the games economy.

that only makes it harder for you to disprove my economic analysis backing up my answer Ok, it's time for some definition. MONOPOLY. noun. It means ONLY ONE seller. If items are even introduced into the game at all, it creates a second seller therefore the person does not have a monopoly over the market. From the moment the item enters the game, the attempts to corner the market are hurt. There are also numerous other problems linked to such attempts explained by some other posters above. You'll find it impossible to prove that let alone succeed

If you're going to criticize him for insulting you then at least avoid these kinds of remarks. :roll:

That's a perfect example of a speculative bubble bursting. Some guys wager everything they have on a good, they assume the good can only increase in value. After a while, as people find close substitutes for the good, it all falls apart and the guys lose everything. In my economics class we've discussed a similar situation, but it was with the government of an entire country that bought huge buffer stocks of tin, taking out loans using the capital of the tin. Since nobody could buy tin, people found ways not to use tin and then eventually didn't care about tin anymore making the price fall, making all of that tin worth a lot less. It took the entire country 10 years to recover from the loss :XD: Agreed and I'd like to add there are other limits as well on the supply side that could reduce this "flood" of supplier. For example, quotas (maximum amount of stuff that can be sold), time limits (must wait 24 hours before next deposit etc....). Not that fees are a bad example, they're just a scary one. Something that I'm particularly curious about is how the structure of GE will affect or even determine the demand side. For example, if there is a method for buyers to quickly find the goods they need (note: this can be accomplished by players too), then that will create more incentive for buyers to use the GE. We already know that this GE is aimed at facilitating the selling of items and it's possible that the seller has the advantage, but to what extent will the buyer be affected? Automatically I can tell that a place where he can buy the good IMMEDIATELY creates more incentive but beyond that it will all depend on the structure of the GE.

Think of a better excuse not to respond to his quotes. They are valid and if you think they are not then prove them wrong instead of doing such a blatantly obvious evasive action. I really don't appreciate this sort of behavior in a debate.

anything you say? Not a chance! Besides, the situation you described isn't even a monopoly. Take nature runes, for example. There is no way you can ever have a monopoly over the nature markets. If a bunch of freak decide to buy off all the nature runes off of everyone, they will not gain a monopoly. Why? because a monopoly is when there is only ONE seller in a market and in this situation, there is nothing that stops either me or thousands of other people to make and sell nature runes. Basically, since runescape is built in a way in which the barriers to entry into all the markets (except rares) are accessible by anyone, you can never have only ONE person with the selling power since tons of other people can easily compete with his price. Notice also that, in real life, our resources will run out, therefore it is possible for one person to get all of that resource. The resources in runescape are scarce* however they are infinitely replenishing meaning that, theoretically, there will never be only one buyer because nothing stops a second person from getting the good themself. The only exception, and thus the only good that can be monopolized, are rare items but to do that, ONE person must be in control of ALL the partyhats/masks/whatevers in the game. Not only would that be completely unreasonable and unrealistic with the current price but as word spreads, people will be more reluctant to give up their discontinued items thus making the price even higher. What you're describing anyways isn't even a monopoly but a cartel, which is a mutual agreement between parties to keep the prices high (and can only be attempted in runescape on discontinued items for reasons I have explained above). Considering the insane amount of money needed to make even a slight difference and the ongoing competition from other people, the amount of money needed to make a noticeable effect is immense. So no, you're wrong. You cannot have a monopoly or any form of cartel over any of the goods in runescape except discontinued items. *: scarce goods in the economic context are the opposite of free goods and thereby are defined by having a price as opposed to free goods that satisfy everyone's given needs at every given time and every given place. Common Misconception: rune essence, or any good that can be created infinite times, is in fact scarce because it doesn't satisfy everyone's needs at every given time. This is why rune essence, along with all other such goods, has a price.

I don't quite see how you compare a game to a forum. I use both

It's only possible to have a monopoly on rares (and for rares it's nearly impossible).

You're right about the two things, and as for the excess supply (in other words what you call the "flood of cheap good") I am well aware of it, however I am also showing the possibility of an equal excess demand (in other words, lots and lots of people ready to buy stuff from the lots and lots of people selling them). Where people get the money is a different issue, one that gives food for thought however I don't expect such a significant effect

Flooding the market with gathered raw materials is the short term [bleep]e and, as I keep saying, what about the flood of buyers who are all here to see what the great exchange is like?

The "bragging rights" that merchants seek are the same that EVERYONE seeks. Merchants are not the only ones doing stuff for the sake of bragging, the guy who collects cabbages wants attention and the skiller wants the whole world to see his skillcape.

Ah good, I'd appreciate if you added some time frames in your first post. It sounded as if the "conclusion" section was a description of the long-term effect. If all the producers and consumers were gathered in one spot, the price would not budge regardless of the proportion between them because the current price is the price equilibrium in other words to price at which everything sold is bought. Your estimate of the price falling is based on either the short term supply rising, or the short term demand falling. I don't think we have any indication on how it works therefore not enough information to evaluate the short term effect. Since this method is just a substitute to an already existing method I don't think the effect will be really too great for items that are already being traded very readily. I don't think that the demand for raw/processed materials mainly consists of merchants or people who will sell armor readily.

Wrong. The great exchange is eliminating the time constraint of sellers thus making it EASIER for sellers.