chris1216

How did it fail in most areas? There's a few items or sets that the GE doesn't have, but once prices adjust (which takes time) then everything will be hunky-dory.

If it's only adjusted daily then this update is a failure. Prices fluctuate more quickly than that, and nobody is going to bother standing around for weeks to sell items. The problem is that right now I am trying to sell items for the lowest possible price and nobody is buying. The trading ranges are too narrow. Daily adjustments aren't a bad thing since prices for most items won't be dynamic enough to have huge fluctuations in a single day. In a few days, prices will drop to where the market actually is at and trades will flow smoothly. If you're that impatient, you can sell on the forums.

The whole discussion about where blame lies is irrelevant because it is true that many things probably contributed to her death. However, that does NOT discredit his claim that "you should be nicer on the internet because there's a chance that it could hurt someone". What exactly is WRONG about that statement? Saying something like "well she should have been tough enough to take it" is an attempt to absolve the person doing the abuse of ANY responsibility. I'm not saying it was ALL the fault of the friend's parents, but even you can't make the claim that they didn't make things worse.

Your darwinian conception of how society should work is fairly hilarious. Does that mean if you're weak enough to get robbed and shot in the process, that you deserved it? And that people should say "thestanner2, what a loser. Couldn't even defend against a perp with a gun."? I'd love to see what would have happened if your parents decided to make like Sparta and leave you out on a cliff to determine whether you were strong enough to survive the elements. I'm guessing from your demeanor (e-hard) and attitude (ignorant), you'd be gone faster than I could say "society based on principles of compassion".

Well of course it doesn't do any harm to any players. But the irrational mentality of P2P players is that any bonus to someone else is an assault on their own Runescape experiences. I was merely pointing that out to show that as a reason why P2P players as a majority don't support F2P bank space (we pay for bankspace, you no pay you no get). The reason this suggestion isn't particularly viable isn't that it's not a benefit to players, it's that Jagex has zero reason to do it. F2P exists merely to lure players to P2P, and in fact any extra update for F2P players might convince some that might have bought memberships to do otherwise, which is the last thing they want. Again, P2P players have to deal with a far far greater ratio of bankable items to bankspace, and if we can deal with it, so can you. Which also reminds me- the reason this will never happen is because P2P players aren't rallying for bankspace (at the moment), so Jagex doesn't see any reason to give ANYONE space at the moment.

[hide=Quote Pyramid] I actually know P2P'ers who would quit RS if their F2P-limited friends couldn't be on with them. And BTW, do you know what would really be happening if F2P didn't exist? Jagex would have too few incoming members versus the higher amount of outgoing members, and RS would eventually die. 99% or more of the potential P2P'ers out there don't want to play a totally web-based game they can't properly check out first, and they won't want to play it even more if they feel pressured harshly. Actually, it would be quite the opposite. It would benefit both P2P'ers and F2P'ers greatly to be able to have more bankspace in F2P. Let's go with an example case, the "Ex-P2P'er" who might want to go P2P again, but has to wait a while to save up the IRL $$$ to do so. They'd also like to play, but with the current F2P bank size limits, they'd have to drop a lot of P2P items that they just can't lose for any one of an endless number of reasons. But, with an increased F2P bank space limit, they might be able to continue playing depending on their current bank space load amount. So there's at least one good reason for increased bank space in F2P. Now, here's another example as to why F2P should get more bank space that benefits P2P in the process... Let's say that some P2P'er wants to give an honest non-macroing F2P friend a really big job, and says to them something like: ===========BEGIN EXAMPLE JOB CHAT============ P2P_Person: Hey, could you get me the following? [*:34cty62a] 1K Iron Ore [*:34cty62a] 2K Coal [*:34cty62a] 1K Logs (Normal ones) [*:34cty62a] 15K Feathers [*:34cty62a] 2K Swordfish F2P_Person: I wish I could, but I don't have the bank space... =( ============.END EXAMPLE JOB CHAT.============ At the moment, any F2P'er who really uses all their skills (yes, such as me) can't handle that tall order because we're at our bank space limits, which is why I ended that example job chat that way. This also means that the P2P'er who wants the items has 2 options: [*:34cty62a]Get Jagex to give F2P more bank space so their friend can handle the job. [*:34cty62a]Find someone else, and end up paying more gp in the process. Personally, I could be certain that both the P2P'er, and the friend F2P'er, would both rather for more F2P bank space in this situation for F2P and P2P alike. P2P'ers can count on F2P'er friends, but they can't count on strangers (doesn't matter if the stranger is F2P or P2P), so there is yet another reason for F2P to get more bank space. So, chris1216, like to hop on board and support, now that I have shown that more F2P bank space can benefit P2P??? :) ... BTW, you're one of the first I've seen in a while that didn't give me a headache to reply to. Thank you, a lot. :thumbsup: ~Mr. Devnull [/hide] Didn't see this. My first argument about a lack of support from the p2p angle was simply an observation about the general attitude of P2P players (i.e. F2P players can take their complaints and shove them) and that translating to a large lack of support from the only group that has the real ear of Jagex on Runescape. This is regardless of any logical reason for P2P players to support F2P bankspace, because, lets face it, the most vocal P2P players (the ones who post all those rants) wouldn't know logic if it bit them on the [wagon]. The second part, your example about F2P bankspace benefitting P2P players is fairly limited in scope. Either that F2P player would be doing the smart thing (i.e. making decisions on what they can ditch from their bank) or the P2P player would just be buying it from someone else. The as of yet insurmountable arguments AGAINST P2P bankspace still stand, mainly that P2P players have to deal with a greater ratio of storable items vs. bankspace than F2P players (far far greater), and that there's no reason for Jagex as a company to institute more F2P space. Personally, I'm apathetic about the issue, being a P2P player.

Are you actually asking "why do people complain and whine?" Is this a trick question? Did we somehow leave the land of the angsty 15 year olds with rationality problems and travel to the land of fluffy bunnies? People complain about EVERYTHING. Get over it.

Apparently you've never heard of cook-x, fletch-x, etc etc etc etc. I like the idea. I'm more than willing to accept a slower message repeat time than if i was typing if it meant I could slow down the onset of carpal tunnel.

Well, they did kinda steal the grand exchange from WoW's auction house, and isn't there something in WoW that lets others assist/change your items? Yes, because the idea of game-wide item listings was INVENTED by World of Warcraft. In fact, every single idea ever to exist in an MMORPG was invented by WoW. Those Jagex thieves.

The grand exchange is stunning. This month will be incredible.

From what I've read of this thread, I don't see any reason why the F2P bankspace campaign has any merit: The first AND most glaring reason is that if you assume members are more deserving of something than F2P (which isn't really a tough claim, since members pay the fee), then the fact that there is a far greater ratio of members items to members bankspace than f2p items/f2p bankspace is fairly killer. If not that, there's no actual corporate reason for Jagex to do it. I think a lot of the arguments in here about the runescape economy and the greatness of f2p clans and the narratives lose track of the fact that Jagex is a company who's goal is to make more money- I'm fairly certain that no one has any hard data on whether or not f2p pays for itself through ad clicking, and gun to my head I'd lean towards the assumption that they don't. And even if there was no monetary hurdle to giving more space to f2p, there's also the fact that the most vocal portion of Runescape players (members, because they can post on the forums) by far majority wouldn't support the bankspace addition for f2p, considering that if f2p were eliminated in totality, all that money could possibly go towards p2p players. So from the angles I see it, it doesn't benefit anyone but f2p players to give them more bankspace. Flame away.

scamming, luring, keylogging, are against the rules of the game. Price manipulation isn't. The point "it's a game", is in relation to his argument that price manipulation is wrong in real life, but it's ok in the game. Kinda like how killing someone to take their items is wrong in real life, but ok in RS. It was a good argument, except for the fact that price manipulation is so obviously NOT wrong in real life, rendering his point moot. Clearly you haven't done two important things: 1) Read the Code of Conduct on RSOF, a part of which I was going to post but was beaten to the punch on by Artemis 2) Ever heard of an idea called "antitrust laws", regardless of how well they are enforced 3) Actually understand the concept of PKing, which is literally just a form of gambling- when you walk into the wilderness you place your chips on the table (the items you'll lose if you die) and you compete with others to win their chips (items), not to mention the fact that no one dies in Runescape due to respawning

I'm not trying to pick a fight but I can't say that I completely agree with you. First off I agree that price manipulation isn't right in real life. But Runescape is a game. And the point of a game is to have fun and do good in it. I understand that Runescape involves real people but it is still a game. So what R2Pleasent did was in fact in the nature of "playing a game" he got good at it and had fun. Next, life is about choices. If people fall for these manipulations it is there choice. The big point I want to make is: If you have a problem with what R2Pleasent did then you have to have a problem with rares in general. Every person who owns a rare or has owned a rare has taken part in a manipulation. The real worth of an item is the amount of gold you get for it when you high alch it. Rares were introduced for the purpose of fun. And people turned it into something else. So I'm not saying you are wrong but I don't completely agree with you. R2Pleasent was banned so I don't see the point in bashing him further. What's done is done. In the end it's a game. Don't get to caught up in it. By your logic of "it's a game", why do people complain about being scammed, lured, or keylogged? They should all shut their traps and quit whining because after all, it's a game. People will naturally revert to their basic instincts of greed and giving others the shaft, so why are there even rules in place?

I said it before and I'll say it again- This moron deserves nothing in the way of respect. 1) There was clearly either very few half wines in existence compared to most other rares OR many of them in the hands of very very few people, which made it much much easier to pull this off 2) The ease of this scheme was magnified exponentially by the fact that the average age of a Runescape player is somewhere in the low teens 3) Price manipulation is illegal both in the real world and in Runescape- there's a reason kids get banned for spamming forums with rumors about price changes because so and so happened 4) The fact that he is in fact NOT the CEO of a major corporation is an indication of his non-skills- trying this in the real world will either cause you to be eaten alive by the people you're trying to give the shaft to or will land you in jail 5) I'm guessing with 99% certainty that he got banned from everywhere for real world trading that he is STILL doing (google his name and you'll find it), meaning he is helping prop up the macros and farmers that very many of you hate with a passion 6) The scheme was neither complicated or difficult to pull off. What kind of half-wine owner would say "no, i dislike the idea of having my rare shoot up in value. Screw you pleasent!"?

Already suggested http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=702812

1)The fact that you even took 20 minutes, by your own calculations of 3 seconds to get past the stickies, means that you just wasted the scroll time of 400 posts by making this topic. 2) The fact that you were expecting posts like mine should have been something of a GIGANTIC warning light: WARNING: do not post a suggestion that is so useless that it actually annoys people 3) The fact that no one has complained about this before should also have been a tip-off to you 4) The 10 minutes you claim it would take to code this change are a) a completely baseless guess that you probably just pulled out of thin air and B) 10 minutes that could have been better spent maintaining the forums 5) The fact that you call this a "luxury" is yet again another hint you should have gotten about how unecessary this suggestion is 6) The fact that you toss in "things like this is what the forum gets rated on" is ridiculous to the point of hilarity- I can say with fairly absolute confidence that 99.99999999% of users that come to a forum like this are here for the content and not for the fact that they don't have to scroll an extra half second to get past the stickies.

I'm fairly certain you answered your own suggestion quite well with the statement that it screams lazy. Even more ironic is the fact that you spent at least 10 minutes typing this out, which was time you could have spent scrolling down. This is without a doubt the most useless suggestion I've ever seen posted here, and I've seen some doozies.

And a round of applause for actually answering my arguments...oh wait. 1) Your statement that "Rimmington needs to be improved" has zero logic behind it. There's 18000 places in Runescape that aren't used as much as say, Varrock. What makes Rimmington so important? 2) You have ZERO concept of the idea of game balance. You want a bank that makes visiting the crafting guild easier, makes tin and iron mining easier. This is what we call a SLIPPERY SLOPE (of game-unbalancing stupidity). Why not make a bank button in your interface? Just click the little money symbol on the left, and BAM! Open the bank! 3) Your argument about "putting in other stuff" also makes ZERO sense. This is the kind of suggestion that if Jagex ever took up would cause a huge amount of people asking the very logical question of "you took time away from quest story and graphical updates for this crap?" 4) Yes, the original idea is that the crafting guild is far away. It's where they put it in when it was first created in f2p, far away from falador, and that's where it's stayed. 5) The guild is not useless to the population. Many f2pers still use it for mining gold and silver (balancing out the nice amount of gold and silver rocks by having to walk a long way or teleport), and P2Pers balloon to the guild or use the skill necklace, which teleports DIRECTLY TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE CRAFTING GUILD. 6) Your mini suggestion about the crafting guild bank that you snuck into your first post is yes, incredibly unbalanced and illogical. See the part about the pocket bank.

1) It's stupid to put in banks that don't solve a problem, and you didn't name one. 2) The crafting guild is already easily accessed either through balloons or skill necklaces 3) Your "close bank to tin and copper" is negated by the existence of the Varrock mines 4) The argument about law crafting was because of your first (and equally useless) suggestion that the bank be in Port Sarim 5) You can't compare this bank to the one in the Fishing Guild because fishing is an inherent resource gathering skill and thus it would be completely useless for it to exist without a bank 6) "Revitalizing" an area by putting a bank there is also a bad argument because the only people there would be bots 7) The original idea is that the crafting guild is supposed to be far away from a bank for F2P players 8) Your mini-suggestion about the crafting guild bank is also incredibly unbalanced because of the proxmity to a tanner and the silver/gold rocks

Already sugggested here http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=601519

I wish it was that easy, but it's not. - Ard The possibility for that method is always there ;) Ah yes, but what about the promise that each decline would have a reason? You would have to think of a reason, in which case pulling out of the hat doesn't help much, does it? Hi, sorry, we declined your application. We pulled your name out of a hat. Better luck next time! ^There's your reason :P

The very simple and single reason that there is no real "boss" monster is that our characters are too fragile to have any real fight like that. 99 hp max (a bit more with a sara brew) Hits from current boss monsters that can take away at least 50% of our health and the only source of healing, food, a maximum of which can heal only 22% of our health. If you want real bosses, go play WoW because their combat system is built around raiding and teams, unlike Runescape.

I always liked kebbit bolts instead. Gives you a chance to train hunter while high-alching, the hunter crossbow fires insanely fast, and from what I remember reading ordinary kebbit bolts were somewhere in between mith and addy arrows.

Paul posted on RSOF about it. They only now exist in Baba Yaga's shop (he said the stock got bumped to 20 but I have yet to see over 5), MTA with pizazz points, and monster drops (ankou from what I've heard).

You've shifted your argument. First it was about TIF needing more moderators, then it was about moderators needing to be more active as a deterrent, and now you're saying that there's an "us vs. them" stance between users and moderators. Which is it? The deterrent argument is clearly flawed because spam and messages that need locking/deleting will be around no matter how active a moderator staff looks. I don't think there's chilly relations between the users and the moderators and I have no idea where you're getting that from.