PraetorDei

The real world solution is known as the "Dutch auction". Look it up online to see how it works. It does work. It is used in the world of business. There are 3 well known auction types: English auction, Dutch auction, and First Price auction. English auction is the one most are probably familiar with -- the bidders bid up the price until "going, going, gone". Dutch auction is seller gradually lowers price until finally someone takes it. First Price auction is sealed bids submitted and at a set time, all opened and the highest one takes it. Often for a First Price auction there is a minimum price registered with the auctioneer, if that price is not met then the highest bid does not get it, but the offer is withdrawn. In the context of Runescape, the Dutch auction should work easily. This would be a supplement to the current GE. Since it is a supplement, it will not impact GE prices. Thus merchant clans cannot manipulate prices. If on the other hand it is desirable for the GE to be updated, implement a sliding 90 window with a minimum number of item sales for a given item type (means that the GE can look at the past 90 days of Dutch auction sales for any given item type and if a minimum number of items of that type were sold in the past 90 days, the GE could sum up the sales and divide by the number of sales and take that as the current average price for that item.) There is free Dutch auction software out there I am sure -- or Jagex could write some it is not that tough. It is pretty basic after all.

You know it'll be nearly impossible to rewrite those rules without some loophole or exploit... And, to be perfectly frank - normal mice and keyboards don't need extraneous software, its all built in to the operating system. Same with mousekeys, its built in. When you start getting people that write their own software, or use *special*, configurable multipurposed buttons, it starts getting into the area of "advantage over others". Whatever, it'll be his problem if he gets banned, and it'll be Jagex's problem when they can't see distinguish their own lines separating cheating from legit. > normal mice and keyboards don't need extraneous software, its all built in to the operating system. Actually, it isn't. When you buy a preconfigured system, it has the mouse drivers, but they are not part of the OS (for Windows anyway). And any time you go to the store and buy another mouse, it normally comes with a CD-ROM which contains software. Or else the software gets downloaded via the internet. And those are rule 3 violations. Because it is poorly written. QED. As far as the loopholes and exploits I pointed out the way around that. Get rid of the last vestiges of "inefficient" code -- make everything like combat or "how many" skilling. Rule 3 then can be clearly written to focus on bots -- problem solved.

Messenger Skill Concept: a skill whereby you gain experience by transporting items to the bank for other players. Experience is based on: A -- Number of items transported and B -- Weight of items NOT -- value of items. Reason -- encourages messengers to offer services to all (e.g., not just hanging around crafters making jewelry) How it would work: Messenger gets a messenger pack. It occupies 100% of inventory space for messenger when carried. Any other single player can dump their inventory into a messenger deposit envelope that goes into the messenger pack. Doing so automatically tags the envelope with the players information for the bank. Messenger transports to the bank, places deposit envelope into deposit box. Player gets their items taken to the bank and deposited into their account. Messenger gets experience for trip. Items: Messenger gets a teleport ring that will teleport them to a set of banks (P2P will have more than F2P). Ring must be equipped for messenger to place messenger pack into inventory. Because messenger pack occupies 100% of inventory, the teleport capability is only useful for messaging. (For example -- you could go and fight monsters but you can't carry any food or pick up any drops; you can't mine or fish or cut wood because your inventory is full. So teleport ring provides zero advantage to any other skill, also there is no XP gained from using it. Also teleport ring can't be used in combat.) Teleport only works one way -- to the bank. Messenger has to hike back out to where the players are skilling or fighting to get items. Costs: Players giving items to messengers will be assessed 10% of the GE price of the total value of items, they are charged this in GP for each item placed into deposit envelop; subject to a minimum charge. (Amount TBD but it should be enough such that miners powermining iron would not use the service to send iron ore to the bank, but lobster fisherfolk would send lobs to the bank.) Benefits to game -- more of a sense of community. Option -- replace firemaking with messaging. All current firemaking XP would transfer over. People with current firemaking capes could trade them for a messenger cape by doing one run (or they could keep current firemaking cape but could never get a messaging cape). People without would make level 99 in new skill, get a messaging cape instead. Firemaking would then be retired as a skill.,

Plus any weapons will not work. And their animation will change. It will look like you are punching with a weapon in your hand. So...then if your P2P bank inventory holds more items than the F2P bank inventory slots and you are wearing member gear when you revert to F2P you have a real problem, yes? Because if you take off the gear, you can't put it in the bank. And the gear has zero stats so you can't use it in F2P.

This. You will also not be able to use any members items, including equipping items. So if you wanted to wear a skillcape or something, wear it before you lose p2p. So I assume that any higher level armor/weapons actually worn default to rune levels? Or do they go to zero? If to rune levels then F2P could use them as long as they are not unequipped but they would only have rune levels?

Obviously many know the answer to this but I don't. Assuming one is a member, and is on a P2P only area of the map, and your membership expires, the next time you log in -- where are you?

The key word is "automatically" - not "software". Not so. The mouse software does in face move the cursor "automatically". The mouse software responds to the user actions of a mechanical device, and converts that to inputs that generate events. These events are interpreted by the Java client. This software does in fact respond "automatically". Therefore rule 3, as worded, bans mouse software -- ANY mouse software. Yes obviously that is not the intent BUT that is what it says. Also I do not agree that this should have been merged into this thread, since the scope of my post goes far beyond this particular mouse device. Here is the fundamental problem IMO. There is an assumption that the user directly interacts with the Runescape client. But that is absolutely incorrect. The Runescape client, written in Java, responds to events. The events are generated by the mouse software installed as an executable -- not by the user. The mouse software executable responds to alerts generated by "firmware" in the mouse. (The "firmware" is in fact also software but it is "fixed" in the mouse circuits.) And the "firmware" responds to the mechanical actions of the mouse -- which responds to actions of the user. So the sequence is: User==>mouse mechanical==>firmware==>operating system==>mouse software==>Runescape client. The point should be clear though -- the problem with rule 3 is that it acts "as if" the sequence is user==>Runescape client. That is, from a high level, the way most users see it. But from an accurate perspective (which impacts legal aspects) it is completely wrong. And again, the issue is being driven because Jagex is treating some actions (melee, ranging, combat spelling, fishing, cooking, woodcutting, furnace smelting, etc.) as multiple actions from one mouse click, and others (fire making, inventory emptying, spelling on inventory items, etc.) are requiring one click per action. But because rule 3 is poorly stated we end up with situations like this. I suggest the easiest solution is to simply take those few actions that are inefficient (empty inventory on the ground for example) to all offer "multiple item" or just be handled like combat -- multiple actions for one click. And yes zillions of users will whine "it was hard for me it should be hard for them". I still say the analogy is stick shift versus automatic transmission -- the whiners are like old grandfathers who say "I had to use a stick shift for ever so YOU SHOULD ALSO!". Then rework rule 3 so that it is clear that it bans software OTHER THAN "commercial" or "open source" software designed to respond to mechanical input devices. That way macro "bot" programs will clearly be banned -- but no physical input device software will be banned. And yes -- this will mean that if the physical device software can more efficiently execute "clicks" it will be not be a rule violation. Big deal. I use a laptop -- without doubt the slowest and most difficult "mouse" to use (since it isn't even a mouse). Uhm wait: that is a huge slap in the face to people like me who build their own hardware. - Now we could just make it, since rule 3 wasn't clear and their was no clausule what happens when the rule isn't clear.. If that happens me and my friends could never build our own hardware without sharing either the source or licensing it officially... Yeah right -- there is such a huge crowd of "build my own hardware". But seriously -- you and your friends build your own mice from scratch, code your own firmware, your own driver software -- and play Runescape with it? Color me skeptical....but if you are not being sarcastic you are already in violation of rule 3 as it is currently written. So what's your point?

The key word is "automatically" - not "software". Not so. The mouse software does in face move the cursor "automatically". The mouse software responds to the user actions of a mechanical device, and converts that to inputs that generate events. These events are interpreted by the Java client. This software does in fact respond "automatically". Therefore rule 3, as worded, bans mouse software -- ANY mouse software. Yes obviously that is not the intent BUT that is what it says. Also I do not agree that this should have been merged into this thread, since the scope of my post goes far beyond this particular mouse device. Here is the fundamental problem IMO. There is an assumption that the user directly interacts with the Runescape client. But that is absolutely incorrect. The Runescape client, written in Java, responds to events. The events are generated by the mouse software installed as an executable -- not by the user. The mouse software executable responds to alerts generated by "firmware" in the mouse. (The "firmware" is in fact also software but it is "fixed" in the mouse circuits.) And the "firmware" responds to the mechanical actions of the mouse -- which responds to actions of the user. So the sequence is: User==>mouse mechanical==>firmware==>operating system==>mouse software==>Runescape client. The point should be clear though -- the problem with rule 3 is that it acts "as if" the sequence is user==>Runescape client. That is, from a high level, the way most users see it. But from an accurate perspective (which impacts legal aspects) it is completely wrong. And again, the issue is being driven because Jagex is treating some actions (melee, ranging, combat spelling, fishing, cooking, woodcutting, furnace smelting, etc.) as multiple actions from one mouse click, and others (fire making, inventory emptying, spelling on inventory items, etc.) are requiring one click per action. But because rule 3 is poorly stated we end up with situations like this. I suggest the easiest solution is to simply take those few actions that are inefficient (empty inventory on the ground for example) to all offer "multiple item" or just be handled like combat -- multiple actions for one click. And yes zillions of users will whine "it was hard for me it should be hard for them". I still say the analogy is stick shift versus automatic transmission -- the whiners are like old grandfathers who say "I had to use a stick shift for ever so YOU SHOULD ALSO!". Then rework rule 3 so that it is clear that it bans software OTHER THAN "commercial" or "open source" software designed to respond to mechanical input devices. That way macro "bot" programs will clearly be banned -- but no physical input device software will be banned. And yes -- this will mean that if the physical device software can more efficiently execute "clicks" it will be not be a rule violation. Big deal. I use a laptop -- without doubt the slowest and most difficult "mouse" to use (since it isn't even a mouse).

You can go over to the other post and read the multiple entries related to the programmable mouse and whether or not it is "cheating" to use it. From my perspective, those who claim it IS cheating base their reasoning on this: When Jagex says "What type of third-party software is NOT allowed? " look at rule #3. Rule #3 says "Software that generates input to our game applets. This includes software that automatically moves the mouse pointer or generates mouse clicks or key presses." And thus a programmable mouse appears to be in violation, yes? But there is a problem here. All input to the game applets is via software. Anytime you buy a mouse (wired, wireless, 2 button, 3 button, dial wheel, track ball, etc.) there is NORMALLY a CD-ROM supplied with the mouse. You install the mouse software to properly make use of the mouse, and so that the operating system will respond to the inputs from the mouse. Here is the problem. Whenever you use the mouse to provide input to the game applet -- it is SOFTWARE that generates that input. Without the software, your mouse clicks and moves will do NOTHING. It is software that interprets the mouse actions, software that generates the inputs to the game applets. Most humorously, the Jagex rule 3 bans the use of the very software that every single mouse used by every single Runescape gamer uses. Now presumably that was not the intent of the rule. But that is what the rule, strictly interpreted, says. It says you can't use software to generate input to the game applets. But of course all inputs to the game applets are driven by software -- by 3rd party software -- all the time for every single user of the game. Without exception. It is 3rd party software that moves the mouse pointer. It is 3rd party software that generates the mouse clicks as inputs to the game applets. That is reality, that is how it actually works. So. I am not a lawyer -- but I have been working in one form or another computers for more than 30 years, and I find the expressed language from the rule -- unfortunate. Now. Shift of topic. (Yes, I am going to express two topics in one thread.) I think this merely exposes a deeper problem. In terms of the user interface for the game, Jagex clearly follows standard software industry practice and optimizes certain user driven repetitive actions. (1) When you melee, you don't have to click for each weapon swing. (2) When you range, you don't have to click for each arrow shot. (3) When you cast offensive combat spells, you don't have to click for each cast. (4) When you fish, you don't have to click each time you cast the line or thrust the harpoon (5) When you fish, you don't have to bait the hook between each fish (6) When you cook, you don't have to click to cook each item of the same type (7) When you smelt in a furnace, you don't have to click to smelt each ore to a bar (8) When you chop wood, you don't have to click for each stroke of the hatchet or between each set of logs This makes sense and is what would be expected. What does not make sense are things like -- you have to click each time to make a fire, you can't "empty pack" in one click (unless it is into a bank deposit), etc. These appear to be artificial limitations, and strangely players who have played the game a long time and put up with them defend them. Apparently along the line of -- if it was hard for me it should be hard for you -- or it would devalue a skill if it was made "easier" etc. That's exactly like arguing -- we should never have installed automatic transmissions in cars because that's not fair to everyone who had to spend years driving a stick shift. They had to suffer with a stick shift so you should also! Bah. That's all I have to say on that.

The whole point is that if you REALLY took a ship, it would take a long time so you would be rested. And it doesn't take that long in the game to select "rest" after all. Like what, 20 seconds? So it is merely a convenience such that if you take a ship, you don't sit on the dock for 20 seconds. That's all. I guess I don't see how the agility skill would correlate to resting while riding on a ship. As for taking a ship multiple times to gain back run energy -- wouldn't it be faster to just sit on the dock and rest?

Travel by ship would actually take quite a while in the physical world. Therefore I recommend that when traveling by ship, once you reach destination, that the run points be reset to maximum. Should be equivalent to "rest" all the way to maximum run points. Should be very easy to code, and corresponds to real world. Comments?

Two reasons. 1st, they never enter my inventory, they are just thrown back right away. 2nd, they reenter the pool of available fish to be caught for other players. If I take them and drop them they don't have a chance to catch them. So it is a convenience to me (not dealing with fish I don't want) and a convenience to them -- they get to catch the fish I don't want and they get the experience.

??? bank your fish, takes an extra 2 sec per invent Sorry I am not getting this one. What do you mean? If I am fishing and my inventory fills up I can cook them, dump them, or run them to the nearest bank or depository. What is this "two clicks away" you speak of?

???

Solution is very very simple. Just don't wear one. You might have one. You might have 10. Just keep them in the bank and don't wear them. Problem solved. IMO the capes look a little silly anyway. They remind me of when I was 8 and tied a bath towel around my neck and went running through house shouting SOOOPERMAN! It reminds me of the book "The millionaire next door" -- which talks of people who have amassed at least a million in real wealth -- but live modestly, drive the 10 year old car (and in fact always buy used cars). They don't dump all their money into the Lexus, McMansion, and flashy jewelry. So why should we do the same in the game? I agree with your point about lack of motivating content past skills in the 80s BTW.

The way this would work is similar to the "auto respond" if you are attacked. It would apply when fishing. If you are fishing in a spot where you can catch either of two types of fish (e.g. trout or salmon, swordfish or tuna) you select "throw back trout" or "throw back tuna". So if you are fishing for swordfish for example, every time you catch a tuna your character would throw the fish back -- automatically. You would get zero XP for fishing for this fish. So this approach would COST you XP compared to keeping and dropping it. So why would anyone want to cost themselves XP? Well if you hate clicking to drop more than you would dislike giving up the XP, this way you could just fill up your inventory with swordfish alone. Assuming you keep dropping all your tuna this would cost you probably about 1000 XP for each inventory (well eachF2P inventory) -- plus it would cost you the opportunity to advance cooking skill by cooking those tuna before dropping them. So hey it might cost you 2K XP per inventory load. On the plus side, while you would skill more slowly, it would be more convenient. No click drop click drop etc. Thoughts?

Original advice request was: fight or skilling -- but that was before I learned this was P2P only. Since it is....question is now irrelevant.

What matters to the economy is not number of registered accounts -- whether that is 10K or 10M matters not. What matters is the number of skillers active in the economy. Your point about the 169 new worlds would be valid if they were all F2P worlds -- but in fact most of them are NOT F2P worlds. And I made a direct comparison to Perfect World -- which currently claims 50 million players. And which started significantly later than Runescape. Of COURSE the PW numbers are just everyone who ever signed up for an account. But so are the Runescape numbers. Really it is a question of competing business models. There are basically 3. There is everyone pays (example WoW) except for "free weeks" for people to try it out for free for a week -- if they like it they become paying members. There is free subset of content (skills, geography, quests, monsters, etc.) but for full access you pay. That is the Runescape model. There is the totally free skills, geography, quests, monsters model, but you pay for special weapons, clothing, etc. That is the Perfect World model. Of the 3, the PW model offers the most to free to play players. You can go everywhere, do all the quests, fight all the monsters. BUT. If you want the cool clothing (and the girl players DO) and the cool flying mounts -- that's stuff from the "cash items" shop. Also "getting married" in the game requires buying items from the cash shop. The simple facts are that for F2P, the PW model is simply better. And that is why they claim 50 million users for a game that has only been out for what -- a year and a half? Back to my point -- the in game economy is based on having lots of active in game F2P players cranking away. If that groups dwindles....well. And lets be realistic. Those 50M PW players didn't come here for a reason. Why not? Ok great. But in that entire argument you left out the part of how you have come to the conclusion that the f2p population is dwindling. The account numbers are obviously exaggerated, but that doesn't mean more people are quitting than joining. What is giving you the notion that people are quitting? Because they don't get a double xp weekend? Because people that pay for the game get more benefits than those that ride the backs of the paying members? Because Jagex does not publish numbers there is no way to do accurate polling statistics. But what we can do is compare between games. Perhaps F2P is declining. Or holding constant. Or slightly increasing. Problem is, from a corporate perspective, you have to compare the product to competitors. If PW picks up 50M accounts in a year and a half, and Runescape picks up a couple hundred thousand....so from a relative perspective F2P is clearly not growing nearly as fast as would be necessary to compete. See, Jagex can probably SURVIVE by focusing on 3rd world accounts with slow connections. AOL survived for a really really long time using their walled garden for old people model. Key word is survived they didn't thrive. The key point is the RATIO of F2P to P2P not necessarily raw numbers. But if the RATIO of F2P to P2P is declining, and the P2P depend upon the raw materials produced by F2P then the long term trend you would expect to see is commodity items becoming more expensive over the years. The Jagex GE doesn't post charts for more than 180 days. I would like however to see costs for commodities like ore and gems over a 5 year period. I can point out the GE "common trade index" shows that since December of 2007 the index average has gone from 100 to about 160. This can be caused in two ways -- higher demand or lower supply. Both higher demand and lower supply occur if the ratio between P2P and F2P shifts such that there are fewer F2P "suppliers". Or if the number of P2P remains constant but the F2P declines. In either case you should see my point. The market watch can be seen here: GE Market Watch I am asserting that the Runescape economy depends upon F2P. The market indicators show that the economy is growing more consumers over suppliers, and my assertion is that F2P are the primary suppliers of commodity items. I predict that unless Jagex can make the game more attractive to F2P this trend will continue. And since F2P are the "poorest" players -- well I project that Runescape will become truly feudal. P2P will be the "fighters" -- because they can afford it. F2P will shift more and more to skilling and merching to make money. But of course only a small subset of MMORPG players want to log in and chop pretend wood all day.

What matters to the economy is not number of registered accounts -- whether that is 10K or 10M matters not. What matters is the number of skillers active in the economy. Your point about the 169 new worlds would be valid if they were all F2P worlds -- but in fact most of them are NOT F2P worlds. And I made a direct comparison to Perfect World -- which currently claims 50 million players. And which started significantly later than Runescape. Of COURSE the PW numbers are just everyone who ever signed up for an account. But so are the Runescape numbers. Really it is a question of competing business models. There are basically 3. There is everyone pays (example WoW) except for "free weeks" for people to try it out for free for a week -- if they like it they become paying members. There is free subset of content (skills, geography, quests, monsters, etc.) but for full access you pay. That is the Runescape model. There is the totally free skills, geography, quests, monsters model, but you pay for special weapons, clothing, etc. That is the Perfect World model. Of the 3, the PW model offers the most to free to play players. You can go everywhere, do all the quests, fight all the monsters. BUT. If you want the cool clothing (and the girl players DO) and the cool flying mounts -- that's stuff from the "cash items" shop. Also "getting married" in the game requires buying items from the cash shop. The simple facts are that for F2P, the PW model is simply better. And that is why they claim 50 million users for a game that has only been out for what -- a year and a half? Back to my point -- the in game economy is based on having lots of active in game F2P players cranking away. If that groups dwindles....well. And lets be realistic. Those 50M PW players didn't come here for a reason. Why not?

Ah. Of course. It figures. I will admit -- the only reason I play Runescape instead of something like Perfect World (which has graphics literally 10x superior to Runescape, the ability to fly, much greater distances, far more types of monsters -- and ALL FREE!) -- is that I play this on my work laptop on the train (yes over a cellular connection unlimited data of course) and on the weekends. And my company's policy precludes downloading and installing non-work related software -- and that means ANY game software where a client gets installed. Runescape is browser only -- so does not violate installation policy (and I play it only on my own time). So my point? It is that F2P players, other than unusual cases such as myself, do have other choices. Many other choices. And while Jagex gets zero direct dollars from F2P players, the Runescape economy depends upon all those miners, wood cutters, crafters, fishers, etc. And oh yeah -- P2P fletchers sell lots of arrows to F2P rangers. P2P runecrafters sell lots of runes to F2P mages, etc. So if Runescape becomes so much less attractive than other games for F2P (I am not discussing P2P) then the Runescape economy will gradually collapse from lack of resources as the F2P populations dwindles. I have listened to my 11 year old son and his buddies talk about games (Perfect World, WoW, Combat Arms, etc.) and their consensus is that Runescape is "for lamers". I suspect if someone started playing Runescape 5 to 10 years ago and has a lot invested in the game (emotionally and timewise) they may be prejudiced towards Runescape. My conception after having played for a few months and having watched my son and his friends play multiple games is this: Runescape will gradually wither and die as the F2P population slowly decreases. Now I suspect that many disagree. I am open to hearing contrary opinions.

Most of the discussion on the Jagex forums is all about skilling -- the enhanced XP effects and buying and selling etc -- and it is mainly focused on P2P skills like summoning and herblore and such. I haven't seen anyone discussing -- enhanced XP for plain old monster slaying? Why is that? Also it appears that XP "enhancers" already in the game will be nullified. So -- for FP2 -- build atk/str/def? Or skilling?

So basically, F2P should have green dragons because they could be killed? Got any other amazing reasons why this would be a good idea? Yes. F2P are the basis for the Runescape enconomy. There ARE other free games out there, and more all the time. If F2P does not become more attractive, F2P players will go elsewhere (more than they are now).

So the question I have to add to this thread is this -- why doesn't Jagex adjust the GE medium price to the "actual" value price? Why keep the GE price too low? I mean, that is what a market is FOR! It would be bloody stupid if in the real world a stock market tried to impose a fixed trading range on a particular stock. Yes, the market as a whole does have "circuit breakers" that halt trading of a given stock if it changes too much in too short a time. But the whole purpose of a market is to permit an item to trade at the level where buyers are willing to buy and sellers to sell. So -- why isn't the GE just updated with the "realistic" prices for these high priced items? What is Jagex's objective here? (And related to that -- why haven't the gem prices for the jewelry store in Falador been set to a realistic level? The stock is zero and the prices are nuts low. What are gems treated differently from any other commodity item in the game?)

There is another way. In a previous game they had the concept of "guild master". You could change your class if you were multiple class only by going back to the respective guild master and re-registering for the other class. So you could switch -- you just had to go to the specific guild and inform the guild master (a NPC) that you were switching. At that point you would build XP for that guild. In that game, you could only wear equipment , wield weapons, and use spells for the guild in which you were currently registered. So -- you could build multiple classes, and switch. But you couldn't, for example, switch "in the field".

Not sure I follow this because if it worked the way you say, once I exceeded a monster's defense with my attack I would never miss. But that is not what occurs. Rather if my attack is low versus their defense, I might hit 1 out of 3. As I build my attack it is then 1 out of 2, then 2 out of 3, then 3 out of 4. I don't fight anything where I "never miss". I suppose if that were the case then yes I would build strength. But it is not the case. As for what I usually grind on -- ice giants. I probably average a little better than 1 hit out of 2. Some times I hit 4 in a row, sometimes I miss 4 in a row. Perhaps their combat level is a factor? Mine is 86 (I think, not logged in now), and the ice giants are listed as level 53. If I could move my average hits from 1/2 to 2/3 that would very much shorten the encounters. I think increasing my strength die from 14 sided to 16 sided with a rune scimitar is not going to be as decisive as hitting more often.