Grand Exchange Conspiracy Theory

[quitthegame]

Both are usually illegal but have certain areas/markets that legalize them.

 

 

 

RWIT is not illegal, but against Jagex rules, which are of very little value in actual courts. People still don't get the difference.

 

 

 

RWT being against Jagex rules is the proper analogy to drugs being against the law, in the interests of conciseness I didn't spell that out because I thought it was obvious. If you really want the longwinded version, here it is: "Both drugs and RWT are usually against the rules in the world that they inhabit, but just as some countries have experimented with legalizing drug use, some games have experimented with legalizing RWT"

 

 

 

but have even more detractors with arguments that they have negative effects on society at large

 

 

 

Except that RWIT has no negative effects on the society at large. People are just brainwashed to think it does. Read the more extensive article on RWIT that I wrote on that while actually considering it objectively, something you somehow seem to accuse me of.

 

 

 

I didn't say that RWT has negative effects on society at large, just as I didn't say that illicit drugs has negative effects on society at large. I said both have many detractors who argue that they have negative effects. BTW, the society at large in regards to RWT is the RS society, not RL society, I was being brief again. I was VERY careful to word my sentences in that fashion, because I read and agreed with your piece about RWT. Regardless of my beliefs though, the analogy remains a good one.

 

 

 

and lead to other categories of crime.

 

 

 

Which is an argumentation fallacy if you use it to explain why RWIT is immoral.

 

 

 

Luckily, I didn't. I mentioned that other people do... 95% of what I see other people say about morality is a fallacy, but that's the world we live in.

 

 

 

Both have their price pushed up by their illegality

 

 

 

Actually, I doubt making RWIT within the rules will change much to the price of RS gold.

 

 

 

I disagree wholeheartedly, but it's not really worth arguing. If you want to look up the statistics on countries that have legalized drug use, you can, although the confounding effect of drug users immigrating to that country seems like it would be there. I know when the US ended the prohibition of alcohol, it's use doubled as it's price dropped.

 

 

 

Really, it's a fantastic analogy

 

 

 

It is not. It means your defintion of "a game" and "real world" are being diluted so far that you can't even understand the difference between an act that is quite harmless (RWIT) versus one that actually leads to the death of many people (drugs).

 

 

 

Everyone that quits a game because of cheaters is analogous to someone dying in the real world due to drug use. Both are quite common occurences, sadly.

 

 

 

I don't dispute that inflation has occurred, but to claim that inflation has tracked the price of rares neatly seems an unjustified claim. The scientific method is hypothesis, then test, then theory.

 

 

 

Again read another of my articles that I wrote here at tip.it. The amount of practical evidence is astounding, and I'm not going to argue about this point here.

 

 

 

Yea, I already debated with you about that article a year or two ago. It doesn't seem like your predictions came true, although it's not like I've been following the price of rares. I keep saying people talking about stagnation of rare prices, though.

 

 

 

I don't agree with this at all really. The stagnation of rare prices over the past year doesn't seem to me to accompany any change in inflation.

 

 

 

The stagnation certainly accompanies a change in inflation if you know where to look. I looked into it and found out population growth (which is related to inflation, perhaps in a bit more complex way) is significantly lower nowadays. Population growth and money supply growth are the main drivers behind the development of rare prices, as I have always claimed.

 

 

 

Yes, you can always fudge the numbers to make the past work out, but that's not how science works. You come up with a hypothesis, and test it in the FUTURE.

 

 

 

The lowering of rare prices when construction came out is as easily explained by the increase in supply by people selling rares to pay for POH, as it is by deflation caused by a money sink.

 

 

 

Nice thought. Except that rares prices didn't go down when construction came out... :lol: Do I have a suitable explanation for that? No.

 

 

 

Edit: Actually I do have a theory on that. Something along the lines of: while construction in general costs money and drains money, it also allowed for some massive and extremely profitable merchanting at the time, which may have allowed some formerly "poor" people to climb up the ladder at light speed, which in turn created an enormous new demand for rares.

 

 

 

Apparently I misremembered that particular episode... well anyways moving on.

 

 

 

The massive increase in rare prices over the long term seems so likely to be largely due to bubble-type increases

 

 

 

People don't say famous real life paintings that cost (tens of) millions or special golden coin that was sold for over $7.5 million are price bubbels.

 

 

 

Sure they do. Here's a quote from Money Week, which I found in 4 seconds by googling : "What's behind the art bubble?

 

 

 

This bubble has got nothing to do with the paintings, of course. "Good business is the best art," as Warhol said, and the sharpest business minds in the auction room only come to look foolish if they can't settle up afterwards. Sotheby's and Christie's between them control nine-tenths of the world market in art, furniture and jewellery investment via live auctions.But even the business of helping Russian billionaires make newspaper headlines with their disdain for cash can be tough. That's why, following the slump in fine art sales that came with the collapse of Japanese real estate and equity prices in the early '90s, Christie's and Sotheby's colluded in what the European courts called "secretive meetings" to rig commission rates in their favour, replacing competition with inflated fees that defrauded vendors out of an estimated $450 million.

 

 

 

Fair's fair, we all need to scratch a living, and between 1989 and 1991 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ when Tokyo's various asset bubbles burst and began dragging the whole Japanese nation into deflation ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâthe turnover in fine-art auctions worldwide sank by three-fifths. Things steadily improved as the S&P and then Nasdaq picked up where the Nikkei had left off. But gross sales slipped again as equity prices declined, down more than 25% between 1999 and 2003. "

 

 

 

I'm sure if you researched it yourself you'd find hundreds more such articles in the same vein. We've both made our predictions for the future, so we'll just have to wait and see. If the rares markets ever loses 40-70% of it's value in a single month, I'll call that a bubble collapse, I'll be right. If it never does, I won't have been proven right. Fair enough? I wouldn't be particularly proud, as it's a weak claim. If I predicted a collapse in rares in a certain 4 month period, that would be a very strong claim, which I would be proud of making if it were true. The claim I'm actually making is not even falsifiable, with it's unlimited lifespan, and I wouldn't even bother talking about it if so many people didn't claim its negation.

 

 

 

I am not surprised you take it up for qeltar, because I can recall having similiar discussions with you, although I believe they were quite a bit more civilized. Perhaps look at all the personal flames and subtle offenses he makes throughout his posts, before you make such overhasted conclusions.

 

 

 

The debates we used to have were over whether rares would inevitably increase in value, not about how rares were bad for the game. I didn't miss the ad hominem arguments Q made, just as I didn't miss the ad hominems and appeals to authority from you and H. You guys were doing a better job at obscuring the arguments with fallacies, so I entered the fray. Actually I probably was just upset that you were trashing that genius analogy, I doubt I would have said anything without that.

 

 

 

Let's say only 1% of RWT buyers buy gold to get rares. Well, rares are really expensive, so that's still like 40% of RWT transaction volume.

 

 

 

Comming up with random numbers that you pulled out of the air doesn't help your point of view to get any credit at all. Who wanted to discuss on a scientific level again?

 

 

 

If you are going to quote an article as a theory supported by evidence, then the data sets you quote as evidence must date from AFTER the formation of your hypothesis. That doesn't apply to my paragraph above, which is a philosophical speculation about the future. Sadly, I don't have any hard evidence about RWT and their purposes in RS, do you? If not, we're stuck in this phase on this topic.

 

 

 

Whatever is intensely valued is intensely hated, in life and in RS.

 

 

 

Wow. You are more or less completely reiterating the whole point here, which is that there is no issue with rares at all, except of the jealousy / hate campagins that people run against them for whatever personal agenda they have.

 

 

 

Personally I agree with that, sadly the jealousy/hate campaign run by Jagex is negatively affecting me. I think fundamentally I agree with you, I would like to see Jagex legalize RWT, make botting harder, make RS more free market than it is now. I think Q agrees with you on some current issues about RS too, but the divisive manner in which you guys flame each other obscures all of that.

 

 

 

Jagex thinks that rares are a problem. This is because Jagex thinks RWT is a problem, and rares do contribute to RWT, undeniably so on the seller side.

 

 

 

Another problem people continously seem to face is a huge lack of factual knowledge. Jagex has always hated rares inherently for what they represent, as can be figured out my favourite 2-3+ year old quote of Jagex:

 

 

 

We don't want this to just become an event whereby a few lucky players suddenly become ludicrously unfairly rich. Therefore new holiday items are non-tradeable and limited to one per player. But hopefully still alot of fun.

 

 

 

I actually remember that quote, I only play RS 4-5 months a year but I still read the updates when I'm not subscribed. I'd kinda let it slip from my mind though. Anyway, I still maintain that Jagex hates rares and high-staking more because of their involvement in RWT, even though they may have always hated them a little.

 

 

 

Jagex has left rares alone for the 5 years that I have been playing this game. I have no reason to think that they will now suddenly "solve" a "problem" that does not even "exist". Jagex long entered the phase "if we act like it does not exist, it does not disturb us anymore". All these rare-haters would do a great job if they assumed that ideology from Jagex.

 

 

 

That's what I thought 3 months ago, but I don't think that anymore. Jagex is on a crusade, and I don't know where it will end.

 

 

 

If it weren't for Jagex's crusade, then I would think rares were kinda silly but I wouldn't care much one way or the other, but Jagex's War on RWT is changing everything. Man, that analogy to illicit drugs is sounding better and better isn't it?

 

 

 

Jagex are certainly on a holy crusade against RWT, I pointed that out on many threads already as well. Ofcourse, IMO it is based on wrong assumptions and invalid reasoning.

 

 

 

I'd say it's based on raw emotion, which is very hard to argue with. Just like the War on Drugs is most fiercely driven by raw emotion... :P

[Duke_Freedom]

Both have their price pushed up by their illegality

 

Actually, I doubt making RWIT within the rules will change much to the price of RS gold.

 

I disagree wholeheartedly, but it's not really worth arguing.

 

 

 

Indeed it is not worth arguing. Actual research done by Sony agrees with me. Too bad for you.

 

 

 

Ofcourse I expect you to state that Sony's research is just as much cabbage as mine or how RuneScape and Everquest are different games while there is no fundamental difference between the two at all.

 

 

 

Everyone that quits a game because of cheaters is analogous to someone dying in the real world due to drug use. Both are quite common occurences, sadly.

 

 

 

I have yet to see even one person really quit the game over RWT. You're making a baseless claim there, especially as RWT is rampant as is. According to your statement people would already quit massively over, which is clearly not happening.

 

 

 

And to say the least, comparing someone quiting a game he plays for fun versus people dying is stretching things into a ridiculous area.

 

 

 

Yea, I already debated with you about that article a year ago. Sadly for you, your predictions didn't come true.

 

 

 

Sadly that is merely your opinion. I don't see any predictions in it that didn't come true, but I'm really not interested in arguing about it here and with you.

 

 

 

Yes, you can always fudge the numbers to make the past work out, but that's not how science works. You come up with a hypothesis, and test it in the FUTURE.

 

 

 

Says the person who posted:

 

 

 

Let's say only 1% of RWT buyers buy gold to get rares. Well, rares are really expensive, so that's still like 40% of RWT transaction volume.

 

 

 

Instead of only critizing my work, perhaps you should do some research yourself before you make all kinds of baseless claims. At least all my research has actual backing using actual numbers. Science is about making premises. Again I'm not interested in discussing any of this further with you, considering the hostile attitude you have regarding about everything I write and all research that I have done.

 

 

 

If you don't believe the numbers I came up with to be objective or accurate than that is your problem and then we have nothing to discuss about - I actually explained how I calculated everything and what the premises were, so the bias you talk about does not exist, no matter how much you'd want it.

 

 

 

Nah. You seem to belong in the group of people who continously critizes others without ever contributing anything useful themself. Despite that, you think that they can wave away all arguements and research done without having any field experience or practical observation yourself.

[quitthegame]

Ofcourse I expect you to state that Sony's research is just as much cabbage as mine or how RuneScape and Everquest are different games while there is no fundamental difference between the two at all.

 

 

 

There is a bit of a confound there, in that #1 One might reasonably expect more more demand for RWT buying in that server, which would drive prices up, due to the self selection process of picking that server. #2 Gold sellers might avoid that server at first because they think it will be cheaper gold, and they are seeking to maximize their profits. Those confounds aside, I do believe that gold prices in RS would drop if RWT were legalized, I never played EQ 1 or 2 so I don't know if there are any relevant differences or not.

 

 

 

If Jagex did something like Sony did, i.e. opened up 2 new worlds of RS that were completely separate from the current worlds of RS, in that you had to create a completely new character to play in the RWT enabled portion of RS and couldn't play it in the other RS servers, in that case I do NOT believe that the price of gold in those 2 servers would be cheaper than the current illicit gold buying prices on the old servers, at least not in the first year. That would be a true comparison to Sony's experiment.

 

 

 

I have yet to see even one person really quit the game over RWT. You're making a baseless claim there, especially as RWT is rampant as is. According to your statement people would already quit massively over, which is clearly not happening.

 

 

 

No one has ever quit because of botters, scammers, or duel cheaters? Those activities aren't done by RWT's? Are you serious?

 

 

 

And to say the least, comparing someone quiting a game he plays for fun versus people dying is stretching things into a ridiculous area.

 

 

 

One is leaving the real world, the other is leaving the virtual world... it's an exact analogy. The ridiculousness you perceive comes from the ridiculousness of playing games in the first place, not from the analogy itself.

 

 

 

Instead of only critizing my work, perhaps you should do some research yourself before you make all kinds of baseless claims. At least all my research has actual backing using actual numbers. Science is about making premises. Again I'm not interested in discussing any of this further with you, considering the hostile attitude you have regarding about everything I write and all research that I have done.

 

 

 

I don't believe that my attitude is as hostile as you think, and if I see something that I want to come up with numbers for I certainly will. If you are claiming that only people that write articles based on mathematics are worthy to post in these forums, that's a fallacy-- although since I have a university degree in mathematics I'm certainly not against such articles, I just haven't found one I wanted to write yet. Until I do write such an article, I'll be careful to characterize my points as philosophical speculation and not numerical analysis, a fact which you seem to have missed. Everything has its own place, and what I object to is not that you don't subject your analysis to the scientific method, but that you act as if you had when you have not.

 

 

 

If you don't believe the numbers I came up with to be objective or accurate than that is your problem and then we have nothing to discuss about - I actually explained how I calculated everything and what the premises were, so the bias you talk about does not exist, no matter how much you'd want it.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that the bias does exist, I'm saying that it might exist, and if you are going to quote your research as "scientific" in nature then I'll demand you follow the scientific method of hypothesis-experiment-theory. If you don't follow that method than your math isn't really any more impressive than any other incisive analysis, mathematical or not, and you should stop quoting it as an authority. I don't want to come off wrong, I think all your articles are great pieces of analysis, I just object to the way you bring them up like they are the last word on the subject, when they still haven't gone through the method.

 

 

 

Nah. You seem to belong in the group of people who continously critizes others without ever contributing anything useful themself. Despite that, you think that they can wave away all arguements and research done without having any field experience or practical observation yourself.

 

 

 

Useful and practical are seldom heard in discussions about Runescape ~_~ Nonetheless, I strongly resent your allegations that I am doing the above, pointing out that numerical analysis is not enough to make an idea a reliable predictive tool without the use of the scientific method is far from simply waving away arguments and research done. First you resort to a misdirected tu quoque fallacy in response to me objecting to you using unscientific analysis as an unanswerable authority, now you are retreating to mere ad hominem attacks? I expected better from you.

 

 

 

Since I was so careful in my post to point out how we agree on most fundamentals of this issue and yet you are still so hurt, I must conclude that either you are misunderstanding the import of my post, or that you are unable to be objective about your own articles. Either way, I am sorry that this is the case and that we can't achieve a mutually satisfactory end to the debate.

[qeltar]

A couple of excellent posts, Flammacor, thanks.

 

 

 

Duke: the problem with the Sony study you keep mentioning is not the study itself, but rather the assumptions you make about how and even if it applies to matters here.

[kunasako]

Just a small FYI, but its quite easy to get massive amounts of money playing legitimately...All you need is luck.

 

 

 

Say someone goes soloing God Wars Dungeon bosses, gets only one kill, but the drop is an Armadyl Hilt?

 

 

 

Last time I checked the Armadyl GS is going for 140m+, thats a fair bit of money, made in only a few seconds.

 

 

 

If you play more, you're bound to get lucky at one point or another.

[Duke_Freedom]

in that you had to create a completely new character to play in the RWT enabled portion of RS and couldn't play it in the other RS servers

 

 

 

Sony's experiment allowed transfering of characters from disabled servers to enabled servers, but not back.

 

 

 

No one has ever quit because of botters, scammers, or duel cheaters? Those activities aren't done by RWT's? Are you serious?

 

 

 

Which is a logical argumentation fallacy as I already pointed out in my previous post and you then agreed with me. Make up your mind and stop arguing that ALL RWT'ers are bad because they either bot, scam or duel cheat. People who do any of that already break other rules and people quit because they break those other rules, not because they break ONLY the RWT rule. You should know better.

 

 

 

If you are claiming that only people that write articles based on mathematics are worthy to post in these forums, that's a fallacy-- although since I have a university degree in mathematics I'm certainly not against such articles, I just haven't found one I wanted to write yet.

 

 

 

I claim that all you do is talk the talk, oftenly without any backing, be it numerical, theory or observation. Actually you seem to admit that yourself by saying that all you do is "philosophical speculating". In that case there would be nothing to discuss.

 

 

 

Oh and I couldn't care less for your education. I have mine and at least I don't need to mention it to gain some (again logically false) authority from it.

 

 

 

I find it ironic how all people I have debated with whom disagree on some point with me see the need to mention that they have some kind of education - a little more confidence in one's own intellectual ability would do you guys great. Education means an ability to absorb knowledge out of books, it does not proove an ability to philosophate about practical issues. Most theories learned during education use extremely idealized assumptions that rarely, if ever, hold in practice.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that the bias does exist, I'm saying that it might exist

 

 

 

I'm saying you might not know what you are talking about and that I think you might start to look a lot like the average politician with that statement you just made.

 

 

 

and if you are going to quote your research as "scientific" in nature then I'll demand you follow the scientific method of hypothesis-experiment-theory.

 

 

 

You just don't stop.

 

 

 

It is your choice whether you want to go against all the astounding emperical evidence, theories and actual observations to continue to believe in your own opinion. It just means that you aren't open minded IMO and therefore I see no use in arguing about it.

 

 

 

Besides, I have never said inflation / money supply was all that there is to explain the growth in rare prices on the long-term. I've always named population growth and loss of rares due to high-alching or banning as well. And there are many more minor factors involved.

 

 

 

If you don't follow that method than your math isn't really any more impressive than any other incisive but nonmathematical analysis, and you should stop quoting it as an authority.

 

 

 

My math is just fine, thanks. Anything else?

 

 

 

Duke: the problem with the Sony study you keep mentioning is not the study itself, but rather the assumptions you make about how and even if it applies to matters here.

 

 

 

I only make one assumption which is that RuneScape is similiar to Everquest.

[Skully]

I laughed at that. :mrgreen:

[quitthegame]

in that you had to create a completely new character to play in the RWT enabled portion of RS and couldn't play it in the other RS servers

 

 

 

Sony's experiment allowed transfering of characters from disabled servers to enabled servers, but not back.

 

 

 

I didn't see that in the link you posted, but sure, that's close enough to not change my prediction.

 

 

 

No one has ever quit because of botters, scammers, or duel cheaters? Those activities aren't done by RWT's? Are you serious?

 

 

 

Which is a logical argumentation fallacy as I already pointed out in my previous post and you then agreed with me. Make up your mind and stop arguing that ALL RWT'ers are bad because they either bot, scam or duel cheat. People who do any of that already break other rules and people quit because they break those other rules, not because they break ONLY the RWT rule. You should know better.

 

 

 

Wrong. I'm not making those claims, hence the only fallacy of argumentation here is your straw man fallacy. I'm not claiming that RWT is morally wrong, get that through your head already! I think you must have only read about half of my writing in this thread so far, because I've said that multiple times

 

 

 

I claim that all you do is talk the talk, oftenly without any backing, be it numerical, theory or observation. Actually you seem to admit that yourself by saying that all you is "philosophical speculating". In that case there would be nothing to discuss.

 

 

 

Then why are you still here discussing? Seriously. I've pointed out 5-6 fallacies in your logic, I've quoted a source from the internet, if you want more backing feel free to ask, if I think it's a reasonable request I'll provide more backing, although you're just as free to find evidence contradicting what I said, so I of course reserve the right not to waste my time refusing unreasonable requests.

 

 

 

Oh and I couldn't care less for your education. I have mine and at least I don't need to mention it to gain some (again logically false) authority from it.

 

 

 

Lol. What authority was I claiming? I was just remarking on how funny it was that you think I'm anti-mathematical. You might want to continue your education, though, the number of fallacies you are propagating here is astounding.

 

 

 

I find it ironic how all people I have debated with whom disagree on some point with me see the need to mention that they have some kind of education - a little more confidence in one's own intellectual ability would do you guys great. Education means an ability to absorb knowledge out of books, it does not proove an ability to philosophate about practical issues. Most theories learned during education use extremely idealized assumptions that rarely, if ever, hold in practice.

 

 

 

I don't find it ironic that people respond to your ad hominem attacks with derision and a little bit of self-justification, I find it sad that you see that as a victory on your part.

 

 

 

I'm saying you might not know what you are talking about and that I think you might start to look a lot like the average politician with that statement you just made.

 

 

 

I see that you've run out of anything to say except insults. It's really remarkable to me that you compare a careful philosophical discussion of the scientific method with looking like a politician-- how can I even respond to that? No. That's how.

 

 

 

You just don't stop. You haven't even pointed out what you really consider to be wrong, apart from the fact that I haven't written the 10 pages required to classify it as scientific research. What I think you really want to hear is that I didn't actually run statistical tests on the data and what else to "proof" I'm right. Guess what, in practice empirical data is most oftenly used to formulate theories or more accurately, conjectures. In this case I may add that the empirical numerical evidence is astounding, as well as the evidence derived from direct observation.

 

 

 

This is completely wrong. It's not about writing 10 pages. It's not about running statistical tests. It's about gathering data AFTER the formation of your hypothesis. Case closed. The process is gather data, form hypothesis, gather more data, use only that data to confirm your hypothesis. You are still at the form a hypothesis stage, which is completely fine, except that you swing your hypothesis like a baseball bat that brooks no discussion. That isn't fine.

 

 

 

If you don't follow that method than your math isn't really any more impressive than any other incisive but nonmathematical analysis, and you should stop quoting it as an authority.

 

 

 

My math is just fine, thanks, anything else?

 

 

 

You are completely missing the point. The problem is not that your math is not fine, the problem is that you are confusing math with scientific rigor, and missing the point that careful choice of assumptions can make the math say whatever you want it to. Only future testing can prove or disprove a hypothesis. If you want to admit that your articles are not rigorous, then by all means do so and that part of the discussion will be over. But then you'll have to cease linking to your articles as an authoritative source, which I've seen you love to do.

[Duke_Freedom]

Wrong. I'm not making those claims, hence the only fallacy of argumentation here is your straw man fallacy. I'm not claiming that RWT is morally wrong, get that through your head already! I think you must have only read about half of my writing in this thread so far, because I've said that multiple times

 

 

 

I believe you missed my point. You claim a lot of people quit the game over scamming, botting, etc and you use that to justify your arguement that a lot of people quit the game because of RWT. Don't you see the how wrong that is at all?

 

 

 

I was just remarking on how funny it was that you think I'm anti-mathematical.

 

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated that anywhere, I have just pointed out that you are rejecting my research without any good reason, probably because it does not fit in your line of thought.

 

 

 

I see that you've run out of anything to say except insults. It's really remarkable to me that you compare a careful philosophical discussion of the scientific method with looking like a politician-- how can I even respond to that? No. That's how.

 

 

 

How can I respond to someone who states that my research "might" be biased, without providing any reasons why.

 

 

 

The process is gather data, form hypothesis, gather more data, use only that data to confirm your hypothesis. You are still at the form a hypothesis stage, which is completely fine, except that you swing your hypothesis like a baseball bat that brooks no discussion.

 

 

 

You might want to take another look at the graph again. It shows 3 actual data points and exponential interpolation and extrapolation. :roll:

 

 

 

There is nothing more to discuss. If you want it so badly, call the graphs astounding empirical evidence.

[lordkrohn1626]

How many of you have bought or sold discontinued items to the Grand Exchange? Was it easy to sell but you never can buy? Maybe this is a way for Jagex to rid the game of the discontinued items. It pays fair price to anyone selling them, but not to an actual buyer. Jagex deletes the item.

 

 

 

:XD: oh my god....what an alarmist...wooot yup, you nailed it *whispers* "Jagex is TRYING to make everyone quit, the world is flat, and we have never been on the moon, now tell all of your friends quick".

[hellbellz]

Are you stoned?

[quitthegame]

Wrong. I'm not making those claims, hence the only fallacy of argumentation here is your straw man fallacy. I'm not claiming that RWT is morally wrong, get that through your head already! I think you must have only read about half of my writing in this thread so far, because I've said that multiple times

 

 

 

I believe you missed my point. You claim a lot of people quit the game over scamming, botting, etc and you use that to justify your arguement that a lot of people quit the game because of RWT. Don't you see the how wrong that is at all?

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

I was just remarking on how funny it was that you think I'm anti-mathematical.

 

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated that anywhere, I have just pointed out that you are rejecting my research without any good reason, probably because it does not fit in your line of thought.

 

 

 

I never said I'm rejecting your research, don't put words in my mouth either. You said "At least all my research has actual backing using actual numbers. Science is about making premises." So, I should have said you "implied I was anti-mathematical" instead of using the word "think", this is true. BTW, science is not about MAKING premises, it's about TESTING them. A fact which you have yet to understand.

 

 

 

How can I respond to someone who states that my research "might" be biased, without providing any reasons why.

 

 

 

It's up to you how to respond, but if you understood the scientific methodthen you'd already know the reasons why without me providing them.

 

 

 

The process is gather data, form hypothesis, gather more data, use only that data to confirm your hypothesis. You are still at the form a hypothesis stage, which is completely fine, except that you swing your hypothesis like a baseball bat that brooks no discussion.

 

 

 

You might want to take another look at the graph again. It shows 3 actual data points and exponential interpolation and extrapolation. :roll:

 

 

 

That may be true, but is completely irrelevant to what I said. Perhaps you should reread it.

 

 

 

There is nothing more to discuss. If you want it so badly, call the graphs astounding empirical evidence.

 

 

 

That makes no sense. Want what so badly? Why would I call the graphs that?

 

 

 

Apparently I need to spell this out for you with references, here is a relevant section from the link I provided above:

 

 

 

"As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

 

 

 

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way."

 

 

 

 

 

You believe that you have experimental data that confirms your hypothesis. But, since this experimental data was used to formulate your hypothesis, it is absolutely impermissible to use that data to test your hypothesis. You need to do additional testing, in the future, to test your hypothesis. It is obviously seen that it is not useful to use the same data to test your hypothesis as you used to formulate your hypothesis, by making the simple observation that it is impossible for a single set of data to contradict itself. Only when an experiment in constructed in such a way that there is a chance of falsifying the theory, is the experiment able to provide any support at all for the theory. It's possible to construct a hypothesis and test it, without ever doing a mathematical analysis at all. You seem to be confusing math with science, math is merely the most natural language for expressing science, nothing more.

 

 

 

Again I will observe, in the hopes that through repetition you will understand, that your articles are praiseworthy examples of analysis leading to a hypothesis, and that my only quarrel with them is your practice of referring to them as established fact. I am saddened by the fact that you continue to insult me based on your misapprehension of this one position, and that you choose to ignore the multitude of other topics in which we may have engaged in productive discussion. You must realize by now how badly you are mangling this debate, and you claim in every one of your posts that it is your last, and yet you keep reposting your same incorrect interpretation of the issue. You will not impress me with invective about "all you do is talk." This is a forum, whose purpose is to be a place for people to write posts in. I am not ashamed of using a forum, to make posts. I will not believe that it is better to mindlessly accept wrong arguments than to be accused of "overcriticizing". Either read my replies more thoroughly and make more soundly logical arguments, or continue to be rebuked for your insulting and presumptuous replies.

 

 

 

Let me be as clear as I possibly can. Even if you went back and conducted your analysis in a more scientific manner, you would still be wrong to cite your research in as absolute a fashion as you usually do. All you would accomplish would be to create an idea whose predictions would be reliably testable and who would have some claim to be answered with equal rigor. I am sorry that you are so defensive about your articles that you would choose to blow up one side point, of one of the eight or nine major points I made in my first reply to you, into a major fracas stretching out for many pages, when a more objective discussion could have settled all of the major points by now. I urge you to go back and reread my first two posts to you again, and realize that I really do agree with you more than I disagree with you, and that to focus on only the areas where we are not yet in agreement is to impede whatever benefits we might accrue from discussion. Perhaps you are inclined to disagree, to foment debate. But rares and RWT are a mixed blessing, and no matter who wins an artificially polarized debate, so they will remain.

[rip400]

If there was a conspiracy, they would do the opposite, in other words they would sell more rares and flood the market with them but they wouldn't really do that either.

 

won't they? If it benefits them in 1 way or an orther they will. They don't even care 1 bit about us.

[Sand_Hill]

How many of you have bought or sold discontinued items to the Grand Exchange? Was it easy to sell but you never can buy? Maybe this is a way for Jagex to rid the game of the discontinued items. It pays fair price to anyone selling them, but not to an actual buyer. Jagex deletes the item.

 

 

 

Please, go back to hunting UFO's and trying to prove Elvis is alive. Why would Jagex do that? Do you have any proof that this could even be considered as a theory? So what if stuff's easy to sell and harder to buy. Please, take your crackpot 'theories' and take them somewhere else. :roll:

 

Someone call the doctor 'cause you just got burned! :XD:

[Duke_Freedom]

I believe you missed my point. You claim a lot of people quit the game over scamming, botting, etc and you use that to justify your arguement that a lot of people quit the game because of RWT. Don't you see the how wrong that is at all?

 

No.

 

 

 

A = There are people who drive cars

 

B = People who use drugs are breaking the law

 

 

 

Some people who use drugs (B) also drive cars (A)

 

 

 

Arguing fallacy: some B do A --> A breaks the law

 

 

 

A = There are people who RWIT

 

B = People who scam lead to people quiting

 

 

 

Some people who scam (B) also RWIT (A)

 

 

 

Arguing fallacy: some B do A --> A leads to people quiting

 

 

 

The discussion here fails because we can't get beyond trivial things like this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMO it is a shame that for some reason you saw the need to change the whole debate to discussing what the scientific value of my articles is, as you believe me linking to them was "authorative", even though I linked to them so that people could read the more elaborated arguments behind my thoughts as well as see some numerical evidence supporting my views.

 

 

 

I also find it humorous how you claim to have made 8-9 "major" points now, since we barely disagreed on anything related to the topic. In fact if I reread things, the only 3 points you made that were open for discussion were:

 

 

 

1) The analogy. I argued it. I think we were done with that.

 

2) How you are disturbed with me linking to various of my articles and how I cannot do that, because you don't consider them to be scientific enough.

 

3) Some more comments on the massivity of flames in this thread.

 

 

 

I did found this quote which I didn't address earlier:

 

 

 

If the rares markets ever loses 40-70% of it's value in a single month, I'll call that a bubble collapse, I'll be right.

 

 

 

A bubble collapse has happened at the start of rs2 during which rares prices lost half of their value within 2 months. Another one happened december 2004 with santa's when they were overhyped for christmas - they lost 40% of their value in a month time. Rare-wide bubble mid 2005, most rares loosing 40% of their value within 2 weeks time, half wines never recovered. End 2006, decrease of 30% of most rares in one month. More recently, some rares had lost 30% of their value during the panic-anticipation of the GE update.

 

 

 

So yeah. In overall it's quite likely to happen some time, but those who are affraid of that still lost out of a 10000% increase in 4 years time.

 

 

 

and I wouldn't even bother talking about it if so many people didn't claim its negation.

 

 

 

I'm not sure whether that was directed at me, but I don't claim its negation - as should be clear by the factual info above - as the bubble bet you are willing to take is merely a short-term effect. Back in the days I'd have add that on long-term rares will always recovered from that.

 

 

 

However, nowadays I am careful with making strong long-term predictions anymore. Rares have gotten in a stagnation period one year ago, IMO based mainly on much lower population growth as you could have read in one of the articles I linked to. Add to that the various updates that effect(ed) rares negatively. I still remain slightly positive on rares on long-term, if player population does continue to at least grow at this low rate.

[quitthegame]

I believe you missed my point. You claim a lot of people quit the game over scamming, botting, etc and you use that to justify your arguement that a lot of people quit the game because of RWT. Don't you see the how wrong that is at all?

 

No.

 

 

 

A = There are people who drive cars

 

B = People who use drugs are breaking the law

 

 

 

Some people who use drugs (B) also drive cars (A)

 

 

 

Arguing fallacy: some B do A --> A breaks the law

 

 

 

A = There are people who RWIT

 

B = People who scam lead to people quiting

 

 

 

Some people who scam (B) also RWIT (A)

 

 

 

Arguing fallacy: some B do A --> A leads to people quiting

 

 

 

The discussion here fails because we can't get beyond trivial things like this.

 

 

 

If B and A are not just coexistant but causative in relationship, then that is not a fallacious syllogism. I.e.

 

 

 

A= Some people smoke cigarettes.

 

B= Smoking cigarettes has been shown to cause heart disease.

 

 

 

Therefore, some people get heart disease from cigarettes.

 

 

 

RWT and scamming/botting/owning rares have causation both ways, so it's not quite as simple as the above form, but it's simple enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMO it is a shame that for some reason you saw the need to change the whole debate to discussing what the scientific value of my articles is, as you believe me linking to them was "authorative", even though I linked to them so that people could read the more elaborated arguments behind my thoughts as well as see some numerical evidence supporting my views.

 

 

 

How am I to blame for that? You're the one who started the personal attacks on that topic, and kept enlarging the debate about it. I kept asking you to post about the other points I raised but you were obviously too hurt about your articles to think about anything else.

 

 

 

I also find it humorous how you claim to have made 8-9 "major" points now, since we barely disagreed on anything related to the topic. In fact if I reread things, the only 3 points you made that were open for discussion were:

 

 

 

1) The analogy. I argued it. I think we were done with that.

 

2) How you are disturbed with me linking to various of my articles and how I cannot do that, because you don't consider them to be scientific enough.

 

3) Some more comments on the massivity of flames in this thread.

 

 

 

i was counting them:

 

1)the analogy

 

2) how you are quoting your articles as an appeal to authority

 

3) how your articles are not scientific and therefore not inherently superior to qeltar's analysis solely by virtue of being mathematical

 

4) How rares and RWT are a problem because they cause Jagex to change the game adversely in response.

 

5) Changes in the value of rares due to reasons other than inflation.

 

6) Reasons why the activities with the most adherents also often have the most detractors.

 

7) Attempting to figure out why Jagex is against rares/rwt.

 

8) How you and Hohto are flaming instead of discussing

 

9) how qeltar's arguments can be repaired.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the rares markets ever loses 40-70% of it's value in a single month, I'll call that a bubble collapse, I'll be right.

 

 

 

A bubble collapse has happened at the start of rs2 during which rares prices lost half of their value within 2 months. Another one happened december 2004 with santa's when they were overhyped for christmas - they lost 40% of their value in a month time. Rare-wide bubble mid 2005, most rares loosing 40% of their value within 2 weeks time, half wines never recovered. End 2006, decrease of 30% of most rares in one month. More recently, some rares had lost 30% of their value during the panic-anticipation of the GE update.

 

 

 

So yeah. In overall it's quite likely to happen some time, but those who are affraid of that still lost out of a 10000% increase in 4 years time.

 

 

 

Eh, those aren't big enough/long lasting enough to be what I'm talking about, I suppose I should have made some condition about time to recover being over 6 months or something.

 

 

 

I'm not sure whether that was directed at me, but I don't claim its negation - as should be clear by the factual info above - as the bubble bet you are willing to take is merely a short-term effect. Back in the days I'd have add that on long-term rares will always recovered from that.

 

 

 

However, nowadays I am careful with making strong long-term predictions anymore. Rares have gotten in a stagnation period one year ago, IMO based mainly on much lower population growth as you could have read in one of the articles I linked to. Add to that the various updates that effect(ed) rares negatively. I still remain slightly positive on rares on long-term, if player population does continue to at least grow at this low rate.

 

 

 

Well, I've been saying for 3-4 years now that the housing market in the US was in a massive bubble, for example. It took longer than expected, but it finally started a massive correction this past year, I expect it to go down further. But there's a fundamental difference between houses and rares, people will always need to live in houses, but people could conceivably decide that they don't want rares and the price could drop by 99%. In the long run, rares in RS2 will be worthless. When they shut the servers down, rares = 0. The question is, at t-minus 24 hours to server shutdown, will rares still be worth 500 million gold? how about t-minus 2 weeks? t-minus 6 months? Historically, precious objects have experienced wild fluctuations in value in times of crisis, but how could rares function as a repository of value against crisis when the crisis is the end of RS? That doesn't make sense, which is why I believe rares will crash in value some substantial period of time before the end of RS. I would predict not long after player numbers start to go down substantially in RS(let's say, within 6 months of the player population = 50% of what it is now), rares will have a long term and severe drop in value. Time will tell.

[Vincent]

there are valid points made by both sides in the dc items argument. what's troubling is that both sides dont take into account the valid arguments made by the other.

 

 

 

my solution for dc items is to put a cap on them. a max price they can be sold for; that should end all debate and make everyone happy. but i still think these items are over hyped and overpriced and taking away the investment aspect would be reasonable while these items still would keep their 'value'.

 

 

 

as for conspiracy theories on the grand exchange over dc items i think that's far fetched but we're just getting started on the conspiracy theories i think. if something goes wrong for some people, they'll blame it on anything but themselves.

[quitthegame]

my solution for dc items is to put a cap on them. a max price they can be sold for; that should end all debate and make everyone happy. but i still think these items are over hyped and overpriced and taking away the investment aspect would be reasonable while these items still would keep their 'value'.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that would make everyone unhappy. That aside, it doesn't seem workable. How would you stop people from getting around it by trading 2 cheaper rares for 1 more expensive rare that's over the limit?

[Vincent]

yeah. you're right. or they could just trade items for over the cap.

 

 

 

but if they were only tradeable on the grand exchange then that would be possible and the simplest solution for that.

 

 

 

unless they already had plans to limit and put restrictions and caps on the amount of gp or [overall value] (based on the ge's worth of the items), for personal trading.

 

 

 

but im not gonna get into the argument.. on what will please the most people; because no matter what you do you cant please everyone.

[killotroll]

I find the discussion in this thread very interesting and I feel like sharing some views on the subject.

 

 

 

As far as I can see there are different topics being brought up in the debate. The one I will address is:

 

 

 

What are the intentions behind the various changes that Jagex are making to the game, and where will it ultimately take the game?

 

 

 

I think that Jagex have decided to take serious action to stop financial activity happening between the game and the outside world (other than the membership payments of course).

 

 

 

It seems clear to me that the game (in Jagex POW) have taken a wrong turn and they are now trying to set it straight.

 

What they want is a game, which they have maximum control over. Their business is build on this game, so it's not surprising.

 

 

 

They are ridding the game for areas which enable and/or facilitate Real World Trading.

 

Bots/sweat shops of course is an issue here. But they will become obsolete if Jagex take control over trading. The question at hand is: are they doing just that?

 

 

 

* With the Grand Exchange they have taken a big step in that direction.

 

 

 

* The Duel Arena update took away one way of interchanging large amounts of money/value.

 

 

 

* The announced updates about the wilderness may be taken away another.

 

 

 

The end of RWT, bots and sweat shops?

 

Ultimately they can take away player to player trading. If all trades are done through the Grand Exchange and they remove death piles, bots and real world trading is obsolete, since you can only interchange value through a channel controlled by Jagex.

 

There is no point in making a bot very rich in RuneScape gold.

 

 

 

Yes, they will upsete a lot of players. But Jagex will have control over their product.

 

 

 

Finally to address the topic of rares: to further take control over the game rares have to go. Jagex will continue to introduce new high level items, which will be a goal for the top level players. This way they will be able to adjust drop rates and prices to their satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

 

I do not predict this to happen, I'm just saying that it is a possible scenario.

[meili]

 

Getting large amounts of money goes hand in hand with training and playing the game normally.

 

 

Not really. Most people, even those who have played for a long time, do not have the kind of money needed to get rares, unless they either bought them early on or they spent time merchanting.

 

 

 

That is your opinion only. Most of my friends are long time players and all of them have more than enough. :P

 

 

 

What does a blue Burger King hat go for now, 500m? Suppose you have a responsible player who plays, say, 10 hours a week. Even at 500k/hr, it would take TWO YEARS to earn 500m. And that's if the player does nothing else.

 

 

 

According to Jagex the average player does not play for 10 hours a week, he plays for 22 hours. It would take roughly a year and he would only need 100k or so and hour. Or two years at 50k an hour. :P

 

 

 

Either way earning gp is obviously a function of time. I might as well say someone plays for 1 hour a month and in 1000yrs he would have enough to buy a phat. See how ridiculous your argument it? the more effort you put into a goal, the faster you get it.

 

 

 

Only if you spend ridiculous amounts of time playing.

 

 

 

Please, not the no life argument. You can't expect everything to be handed to players on a silver platter. All MMORPG require players to spend time to play them to get the best rewards.

 

 

 

I'm really talking about the hats, since that is what people are really after. The lesser rares aren't nearly as much of an issue.

 

 

 

Nonsense, there is no difference between any of the rares. They are all simply difficult to aquire items that either show wealth or length of playing. Saying only phats are bad is too subjective, what you see as an impossible amount of gp others can see as reasonable.

 

 

 

And again, it will be rare at first, and its price will be high, but it will go down as people get more of them. Not comparable to discontinued items.

 

 

 

I was using them as evidence that Jagex in fact appreciates the fact that players *want* rare items. I was not saying anything about price always being high. Jagex keeps on creating high level rare items for our enjoyment and when they go down in price, Jagex creates more. They know that players want rare and valuable items and they obviously approve or they wouldn't have created them.

[DetroyerJam]

There would be no point in the GE if Jagex bought the items for sale because you might aswell use a shop! :roll:

[epeeflecher]

Are you stoned?

 

 

 

Yesh.

[hohto]

Haha I've been away for few days and haven't written anything since page 3, yet I'm still called a flamer at page 5 :P Thx for the laughs Flammacor.

 

 

 

Also, the price of mils seems to be decreasing, and as Jagex takes many of the more lucrative ways of earning gold out of the game, this gives more reason for dishonest players to take shortcuts.

 

 

 

The reason why sold gp was getting cheaper was due the fact that making money was made easier while the number of bots could be increased. We've already seen bots killing blue dragons, making natures and stuff like that which gets them "a bit" more money than lob fishing. For the rising number of bots, I assume we both agree on that and don't need to discuss on it.

 

 

 

That's a bit of a null argument, don't you think? I mean, there's a huge, booming business in gold sales, so clearly *someone* is buying it.

 

 

 

The question isn't is the gp bought, the question is in how big transactions are made at once. An average rs player who would think of buying gp in the first place isn't most likely even able to buy many millions at once.

 

 

 

I don't think training becoming easier has anything to do with this issue whatsoever. The gap between people who can afford party hats and regular players is so wide that in many cases it would take players YEARS to bridge it.

 

 

 

Also remember that while skills have become easier to raise, most have also had nearly all of the money making potential wrung out of them. Some skills that you could make a decent profit at even a year ago are now small money losers. It's not a big deal for most players, but skilling to be able to earn a party hat is extremely difficult. The only real ways for most players to do it are merchanting, scamming or buying gold.

 

 

 

The number of phats in circulation isn't too big, I assume we both agree on that. We also probably agree that as long as their number stays at the bottom while the represent a certain status of yours, they aren't even going to be in a price gab where an average rs player could buy it.

 

 

 

However now everyone has better chances to become wealthy, not rich but to have enough money to buy almost everything he needs. There's more ways to make money than there used to be, every year we've been getting ways to make money that don't require countless of hours of work to reach the needed levels (85 mining vs nature crafting for example) and by monster hunting (dk, godwars, etc) you can actually still become dirty rich in virtually no time.

 

 

 

The point is that everyone has the possibility to become wealthy. Getting 44 runecrafting and starting to make 200-500k/h depending on pouches, pkers and your own speed takes approx a day. Same goes for many other things. If you can't get wealthy in the game at the moment, the problem is in your own gameplay. However getting a symbol of the one and few, a party hat, is something that's reached just by few. If we compare this to real life, Ferraris are bought by really few, semi-good cars by the ones who pay even a bit more attention into their career&education and the ones with lowest salary drive with whatever they can.

 

 

 

I personally skilled by way to my second phat, which at those days cost 98 million. Not as much as they do now, but imo it perfectly prooves that it's still possible to make a reasonable amount of money with skills if you're dedicated enough. By crafting double natures things like cheapest party hats can still be gained in few weeks (ok, takes a bit more gaming time than an average player spends) but it isn't impossible. All it takes it dedication and will to sacrifice a bit of time and nerves on it.

 

 

 

If we include the luck part in here too, it can take you ~20mins to get enough gp for a party hat at god wars. This of course requires a lot of luck and premade staock of items, armours and levels.

 

 

 

I said the game would be improved if it were changed to remove this aspect from it. Just as the game was improved when wilderness luring was removed earlier this year

 

 

 

I wouldn't take these things as an example. Owning a rare and working endless hours to get one is a totally different thing than removing an ability to deceive people. Most people have worked for their rares so long that removing/totally destroying them without any compensation would be unfair for them.

 

 

 

This is somewhat of a valid point, but really tangential to the issue. I never said rares were the *only* reason people buy money. Also, while it is *possible* to blow 100M+ raising skills, it isn't necessary. It IS necessary to blow 100M+ to get a rare. And most people do not know how to raise that kind of cash.

 

 

 

And please don't try to claim that people don't buy gold to get rares, because it's easy to find people trying to do exactly that.

 

 

 

Of course *some* of the bought gp is used on rares, I don't deny that. However you seemed to totally overestimated the amount of gp bought for that use. I've personally been at finnish auctioning sites made to work for eBay style and seen how gp is being sold there. I've personally seen the darker site of RS and know people who have done that kind of stuff in the past with a rather large amount of money. I've reported people for RWIT already 4 times this week, which is less than I've spent time in RS in hours. I know pretty darn well that the big majority of bought gp goes into something else than rares and I'm not the only pmod on this thread to confirm that.

 

 

 

If we also get into that is/isn't necessary debate, lets think it like this. For many lower level people even a santa hat or a mask is something special. Those are reachable for somewhat sane prices and it doesn't take even too much nolifing, luck or patience to get one in few weeks. Same time some skills are virtually impossible to get to 99 if you don't want to burn a lot money for it. Yea you could actually make profit with construction or farming, but that would be the same as picking up coin piles from the ground and saving for a christmas cracker: in theory it's possible but in reality it's madness.

 

 

 

I've talked with people who have specifically admitted that the only reason they scam is to get enough money to buy rares. Because that's pretty much the only way they can get one. It's also common for people with rares to be targeted by scammers, lurers and whatnot.

 

- -

 

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

 

 

Here comes few points. First of all, a big majority of scams are so low profit scams that if the scammers actually dream of getting rares that way, they got no sense of reality. Second is the profit maximisation principle. Of course everyone tries to maximise their profits and go for bigger and bigger fish. If we compare this to real life criminals, most of them don't steal because they are planning to buy Ferraris, yet some special ones do that.

 

 

 

Yes, in part.

 

--

 

Come on. You know as well as I do that they could have stopped all RWT in the duel arena with a cap that is 20 or even 50 times higher than what it is now. There's more to that update than just RWT. Either that or Jagex are complete idiots, and I refuse to believe that.

 

 

 

 

I agree that there are many things to fix, but things aren't always that easy. Many things are interrelated as we saw from ruining the staking. It didn't only cause problems among stakers, it affected to other people too. I also agree that a money gab like that would have been good and Jagex overreacted on the ridicilous 3k gab.

 

 

 

Actually, I have seen at least one message from a J mod openly admitting being glad at staking being nuked because of the money issue. And I bet more feel the same way but are being told not to comment on it.

 

 

 

Do you seriously think a jmod would openly admit that an update made by his employer would be bad? You don't see high ranked Microsoft officers saying that Vista/xp/me/whatever was terrible, even tho many others disagreed.

 

 

 

If you mean the money orientation, where's the reducing of high cost item prices? A drop in rare prices may have been good news for Jagex too in some way, but definately not the main point. From this we get into your other claim:

 

 

 

Those changes are likely on the way very soon.

 

 

 

Yes they were and what did/will they do? Removed the most used ways for RWIT and now actually opened a place for sudden richness as splitting drops will become impossible in near future.

 

 

 

Supply has skyrocketed; demand has not. That's why the prices of most items are falling. At any rate, I think you've gone far afield here; I don't see what this has to do with anything. I never said that Jagex was going to stop all trading or take away money. I said that I think the company wants to return emphasis to playing the game and away from spending hours amassing wealth.

 

 

 

I'd personally say that both, supply and demand skyrocketed when GE was launched. It would actually be against the common sense if they didn't. However you're right on the fact that supply has increased a lot more than demand in most items.

 

 

 

I also see GE as an easier way to gain massive wealth. Of course it isn't comparable to old staking, current monster hunting or stuff like that, but with a long period of time it'll save ages from skillers who can concentrate on skilling and gaining money that way. It already saved many hours from me when I got rid of my gold bars which had piled to my bank and I actually managed to make some money while they were for sale.

 

 

 

8) How you and Hohto are flaming instead of discussing

 

 

 

I personally have found this as one of the best discussions for ages, even tho there was few minor accusations and overreactions over them. Just look at the size of these posts and different alternatives given, it's way over the normal average at these or any other major rs forum.