i just got full sara and died on my first trip to the lesser demons since getting it, and i was unskilled, so i thought i would keep the 3 most valuable items i had, which were the sara helm, platebody and kiteshield. annoyingly, i kept the legs, kiteshield and platebody, so i had to buy a new sara helm for just over 900k. why did i lose this rather than the legs which were only worth 350k?

Alch value. Been like this for ages and should stay this way.

Alch value. Been like this for ages and should stay this way.

 

Agreed. Started long before the GE, and it would create far too many problems with untradable\quest items if it were changed.

Yea, to bad.

 

 

 

How did you die at lessers with full rune anyway?

My question: Why not just use full Rune, which has the exact same stats as full Saradomin? But that's another issue.

 

 

 

The items that we lose are based on the high alchemy of that item, which is why you'll keep a bar of iron over a party hat. That should never change.

 

 

 

Besides, there are "items lost on death" tools now...why didn't you consult that?

Why did you take full sara to lessers?

 

Better yet, why go in the first place if they can kill you?

 

 

 

It goes by high alch like the above posts said. If you can afford full sara, get an angel of death grave. It's saved my stuff too many times to count.

i know its obviously my fault for dying, cos at lvl 98 i thought i wouldnt so i was multitasking. it jus thappened that one of them took ages to kill and it finished me off before i finished him off... the main point was that i was surprised i lost the helm worth almost 3 times as much as the legs

yes it is stupid that u lost ur helm.

 

 

 

ever since the ge was released i thought the keep on death stuff should reflect the prices on the ge. the real price is after all what you paid for it. the alch prices is just a value that was made up by jagex, while the ge prices are set by the community. what i mean by that is the ge value should be consider the "real" value because that is the value everyone agrees on. its not just some random number jagex pulled outta their cornhole.

glad someone agrees with me :)

 

i never even considered alching the sara i had just boguht anyway. i paid for it at the ge, so expected to keep the parts which cost the most

i never even considered alching the sara i had just boguht anyway. i paid for it at the ge, so expected to keep the parts which cost the most

 

:wall: :wall: :wall:

 

 

 

Think about it, then come back and tell us why your idea is bad.

i never even considered alching the sara i had just boguht anyway. i paid for it at the ge, so expected to keep the parts which cost the most

 

:wall: :wall: :wall:

 

 

 

Think about it, then come back and tell us why your idea is bad.

 

 

 

care to elaborate? i dont see how it is a bad idea.

tell me why its a bad idea then... i think theres nothing wrong with keeping the 3 most valuable items, like what is meant to happen

Valuable = having monetary value, worth a good price*

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valuable

 

 

 

*Price= the quantity of one thing that is exchanged or demanded in barter or sale for another, the amount of money given or set as consideration for the sale of a specified thing.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/price

The helmet prices are high because they are the part you lose when you die with a four-part set, because the losses are calculated by the alchemy values and the helmets have the lowest alchemy values. Sorry to hear from your loss. :(

 

 

 

And don't care about the "get over it" and "stop whining" -people, they are breaking the Rants Forum Posting Guidelines and their posts can be reported and ignored. I hate to see how TIF is getting more and more filled with trolls and rude people..

tell me why its a bad idea then... i think theres nothing wrong with keeping the 3 most valuable items, like what is meant to happen

 

It would cause an economic crash. For members there is an armor set thats pretty cheap not including the helmet. The helmet is about 80% of the cost of the WHOLE set. This is because when you die you lose the helmet. If you kept the helmet when you die its price would fall (alot) and the price of what ever you do lose would jump up alot. RESULTING IN AN ECONOMIC CRASH

 

 

 

It would also take the danger and risk out of the game.

ok i get that now. ill punish myself by only training at the lvl 25 flesh crawlers til i have made 900k from drops and events... but ill probs give up after a few trips

tell me why its a bad idea then... i think theres nothing wrong with keeping the 3 most valuable items, like what is meant to happen

 

It would cause an economic crash. For members there is an armor set thats pretty cheap not including the helmet. The helmet is about 80% of the cost of the WHOLE set. This is because when you die you lose the helmet. If you kept the helmet when you die its price would fall (alot) and the price of what ever you do lose would jump up alot. RESULTING IN AN ECONOMIC CRASH

 

 

 

It would also take the danger and risk out of the game.

 

Yay, someone who understands. The price is high BECAUSE you lose it. The price of the item you lose will ALWAYS be highest. Oh, and that doesn't do anything for untradable\quest items. Why should I lose my crystal bow over 1 GP cash simply because it has a value of 0?

Actually there's 1 exception to this, Guthan's set.

 

Actually there's 1 exception to this, Guthan's set.

 

Only because the spear gained moment from the crash to propel it below the 2nd item, it should rise again eventually.

tell me why its a bad idea then... i think theres nothing wrong with keeping the 3 most valuable items, like what is meant to happen

 

It would cause an economic crash. For members there is an armor set thats pretty cheap not including the helmet. The helmet is about 80% of the cost of the WHOLE set. This is because when you die you lose the helmet. If you kept the helmet when you die its price would fall (alot) and the price of what ever you do lose would jump up alot. RESULTING IN AN ECONOMIC CRASH

 

 

 

 

hmmm then by that logic. the price of the plate legs will go up? because they become the item lost, not the helm. the helm will crash and the legs will skyrocket. all balances out doesnt it?

 

 

 

so what is the problem here? it is a 4 item set, you only get to keep 3 if u die. so who cares which piece it is???? it should be the cheapest one. plz refer to my previous posts about determining "3 most valuable items" and how the 3 items should be chosen.

if you go by a variable loss method(gp price in this case) then it causes a lot of instability in market prices.

tell me why its a bad idea then... i think theres nothing wrong with keeping the 3 most valuable items, like what is meant to happen

 

It would cause an economic crash. For members there is an armor set thats pretty cheap not including the helmet. The helmet is about 80% of the cost of the WHOLE set. This is because when you die you lose the helmet. If you kept the helmet when you die its price would fall (alot) and the price of what ever you do lose would jump up alot. RESULTING IN AN ECONOMIC CRASH

 

 

 

 

hmmm then by that logic. the price of the plate legs will go up? because they become the item lost, not the helm. the helm will crash and the legs will skyrocket. all balances out doesnt it?

 

 

 

so what is the problem here? it is a 4 item set, you only get to keep 3 if u die. so who cares which piece it is???? it should be the cheapest one. plz refer to my previous posts about determining "3 most valuable items" and how the 3 items should be chosen.

 

 

 

my thoughts exactly

tell me why its a bad idea then... i think theres nothing wrong with keeping the 3 most valuable items, like what is meant to happen

 

It would cause an economic crash. For members there is an armor set thats pretty cheap not including the helmet. The helmet is about 80% of the cost of the WHOLE set. This is because when you die you lose the helmet. If you kept the helmet when you die its price would fall (alot) and the price of what ever you do lose would jump up alot. RESULTING IN AN ECONOMIC CRASH

 

 

 

 

hmmm then by that logic. the price of the plate legs will go up? because they become the item lost, not the helm. the helm will crash and the legs will skyrocket. all balances out doesnt it?

 

 

 

so what is the problem here? it is a 4 item set, you only get to keep 3 if u die. so who cares which piece it is???? it should be the cheapest one. plz refer to my previous posts about determining "3 most valuable items" and how the 3 items should be chosen.

 

IF IT WAS THE CHEAPEST ONE THE PRICE WOULD RISE BECAUSE OF TOO MANY PEOPLE BUYING IT AND THEN WE WOULD LOSE SOMETHING ELSE AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE AND PEOPLE WOULD GO CRAZY TRYING TO FIGURE WHAT ITEMS THEY LOSE EVERY TIME THE GE UPDATES AND IT WOULD RESULT IN MORE PROBLEMS.

 

 

 

None the less JAGeX does not control the economy.

Nice run on and all capitalized sentence...

 

 

 

Actually Jagex does control the economy. If players controlled it, we wouldn't have price floors/ceilings.

Maybe, but it would cause a lot of problems esp. with barrows sets and quest items.