Nice run on and all capitalized sentence...

 

 

 

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

 

No JAGeX sets limits not controls 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.

 

No JAGeX sets limits not controls the economy.

 

 

 

Depends on how deep you go with the definition of "limits" and "control".

I hate the helm losing so much, specially for barrows since helms are most worth of the gear and ofc you won't keep it with the 'safe 3 items' specially dharoks , all parts besides helm 200kish and you keep them instead of 3.3m or so worth HELM? It's dum... God really... #-o

I hate the helm losing so much, specially for barrows since helms are most worth of the gear and ofc you won't keep it with the 'safe 3 items' specially dharoks , all parts besides helm 200kish and you keep them instead of 3.3m or so worth HELM? It's dum... God really... #-o

 

You are dumb for ignoring our posts.

I hate the helm losing so much, specially for barrows since helms are most worth of the gear and ofc you won't keep it with the 'safe 3 items' specially dharoks , all parts besides helm 200kish and you keep them instead of 3.3m or so worth HELM? It's dum... God really... #-o

 

You are dumb for ignoring our posts.

 

Flamebait. No need to be rude.

 

 

 

Items kept on death are based on items' alchemy values. The reason the helms are high in prices is that they are lost when dying with a four-item set (with basic item keeping situation, AKA 3 most valuable items) and have to be bought back if you want to continue using the set.

I hate the helm losing so much, specially for barrows since helms are most worth of the gear and ofc you won't keep it with the 'safe 3 items' specially dharoks , all parts besides helm 200kish and you keep them instead of 3.3m or so worth HELM? It's dum... God really... #-o

 

You are dumb for ignoring our posts.

 

Flamebait. No need to be rude.

 

 

 

Items kept on death are based on items' alchemy values. The reason the helms are high in prices is that they are lost when dying with a four-item set (with basic item keeping situation, AKA 3 most valuable items) and have to be bought back if you want to continue using the set.

 

That has been posted half a dozen times now, and all the posters are refusing to 'get it'. I smell a lock.

I hate the helm losing so much, specially for barrows since helms are most worth of the gear and ofc you won't keep it with the 'safe 3 items' specially dharoks , all parts besides helm 200kish and you keep them instead of 3.3m or so worth HELM? It's dum... God really... #-o

 

You are dumb for ignoring our posts.

 

I have read the alchemy value , tyvm. Since your an impatient little immature doesn't mean you can flame on me it's my IMO and i have the right to say it. Your quote even had no goal , what you meant by saying your dumb, what was the point? Tell me please? I said my IMO so get off my mind...

 

I have read the alchemy value , tyvm. Since your an impatient little immature doesn't mean you can flame on me it's my IMO and i have the right to say it.

 

So what, precisely, are you suggesting? Change it to another item, and that items skyrockets in price. You don't seem to realize that in a player driven economy, you will lose EXACTLY the same amount if you die due to prices adjusting to compensate. No matter how you calculate, players say a guthans set is worth X; dying with it will lose you Y.

 

 

 

And market price STILL wouldn't work for untradables. Quest and items like crystal bow have an alch value of '0', so next someone will be whining that they lost their 900k crystal shield and kept 1 gp.

Besides, any barrows item that's damaged isn't worth it's trade price anymore, it's worth the alch price, which is something like 50k.

 

So, if it'd go by trade price, stuff like dragon boots would protect over it. Yay?

folks remember that the alching value is a number made up by jagex.

 

it does not necessarily reflect the item(s) true value. refer to my previous post about the real world English definition of "valuable".

 

 

 

in this case, the items were acquired at a price different than the alching price. so therefore, the most valubale items were those that had the highest price. it does not matter why the price is what it is, there is no storyline attached to an item when you buy it from another person (/GE).

 

 

 

lets look at another example, a real world one. you go to the local walmart to buy an xbox. the clerk (player) there demands that you pay 700 bucks for it. you know this is stupid because the retail price (alching) is 300 bucks. but you go ahead and pay the 700 bucks. the xbox is now more valuable than the 300 bucks because you gave up 700 for it.

 

if you die and loose the xbox instead of the playstation ( which you paid 400 for at walmart), wouldn't you be upset? after all, the xbox was more valuable to you. 300 bucks more valuable to be exact, even thought the retail (alch) prices are different.

 

I have read the alchemy value , tyvm. Since your an impatient little immature doesn't mean you can flame on me it's my IMO and i have the right to say it.

 

So what, precisely, are you suggesting? Change it to another item, and that items skyrockets in price. You don't seem to realize that in a player driven economy, you will lose EXACTLY the same amount if you die due to prices adjusting to compensate. No matter how you calculate, players say a guthans set is worth X; dying with it will lose you Y.

 

 

 

And market price STILL wouldn't work for untradables. Quest and items like crystal bow have an alch value of '0', so next someone will be whining that they lost their 900k crystal shield and kept 1 gp.

 

Crystal bows used to alch for 540k and buy for 180k on F2P, then Jagex found out that. And Jagex recently dropped it's alch price for some random reason.

folks remember that the alching value is a number made up by jagex.

 

it does not necessarily reflect the item(s) true value. refer to my previous post about the real world English definition of "valuable".

 

 

 

in this case, the items were acquired at a price different than the alching price. so therefore, the most valubale items were those that had the highest price. it does not matter why the price is what it is, there is no storyline attached to an item when you buy it from another person (/GE).

 

 

 

lets look at another example, a real world one. you go to the local walmart to buy an xbox. the clerk (player) there demands that you pay 700 bucks for it. you know this is stupid because the retail price (alching) is 300 bucks. but you go ahead and pay the 700 bucks. the xbox is now more valuable than the 300 bucks because you gave up 700 for it.

 

if you die and loose the xbox instead of the playstation ( which you paid 400 for at walmart), wouldn't you be upset? after all, the xbox was more valuable to you. 300 bucks more valuable to be exact, even thought the retail (alch) prices are different.

 

That makes no sense what so ever.

 

Crystal bows used to alch for 540k and buy for 180k on F2P, then Jagex found out that. And Jagex recently dropped it's alch price for some random reason.

 

Sorry, meant GE value, as that's what we're arguing about.

oh yes.

 

of course.

 

now i see the problem.

 

 

 

if helmets were kept on death instead of other items, the price of the helm will drastically fall. this fall will wreck havoc on the economy and lead to the explosion of runescape. with runescape gone, Obama will have enough power to conquer the world and become emperor of the human race. praise guthix that runescape is a perfect game and accidents like that will never happen.

 

 

 

how could i have been so blind?

 

 

 

oh yes.

 

of course.

 

now i see the problem.

 

 

 

if helmets were kept on death instead of other items, the price of the helm will drastically fall. this fall will wreck havoc on the economy and lead to the explosion of runescape. with runescape gone, Obama will have enough power to conquer the world and become emperor of the human race. praise guthix that runescape is a perfect game and accidents like that will never happen.

 

 

 

how could i have been so blind?

 

 

 

 

Or, more likely, the piece which you lose in return will skyrocket in price and a week later you'll be on the forums ranting about that :roll:

oh yes.

 

of course.

 

now i see the problem.

 

 

 

if helmets were kept on death instead of other items, the price of the helm will drastically fall. this fall will wreck havoc on the economy and lead to the explosion of runescape. with runescape gone, Obama will have enough power to conquer the world and become emperor of the human race. praise guthix that runescape is a perfect game and accidents like that will never happen.

 

 

 

how could i have been so blind?

 

 

 

 

Or, more likely, the piece which you lose in return will skyrocket in price and a week later you'll be on the forums ranting about that :roll:

 

i lol'd at that.

 

 

 

so what about quest items? people are trying to throw that into the argument but it's being ignored.

 

 

 

what about if i die with my barrelchest anchor? and i have a dskim in my inventory which states it's worth 110k (for sake of example) which is then protected over my anchor (i'm skulled and have the protect item pray on). so my anchor that was bought for 195k (roughly) is deemed inferior to the scimitar? how can it be set so that the anchor is more valuable than the skim without alch prices? by the way you can't just "say" that something is worth more because you bought it from an npc after a quest. it would cause (favorite word of this thread) an economic crash.

 

 

 

 

 

for the record- i think the alch price for whip was for pkers so that if some one had that weapon and had shoddy armor they'd be nearly guaranteed that whip.

 

i lol'd at that.

 

 

 

so what about quest items? people are trying to throw that into the argument but it's being ignored.

 

 

 

what about if i die with my barrelchest anchor? and i have a dskim in my inventory which states it's worth 110k (for sake of example) which is then protected over my anchor (i'm skulled and have the protect item pray on). so my anchor that was bought for 195k (roughly) is deemed inferior to the scimitar? how can it be set so that the anchor is more valuable than the skim without alch prices? by the way you can't just "say" that something is worth more because you bought it from an npc after a quest. it would cause (favorite word of this thread) an economic crash.

 

 

 

 

 

for the record- i think the alch price for whip was for pkers so that if some one had that weapon and had shoddy armor they'd be nearly guaranteed that whip

 

Very true. Jagex has been tweaking alch price for years, letting the economy adjust itself - if they want a PKing item to be rare and expensive, they just have to make it alch for slightly less then a whip. It's a game balance mechanism. And quest items would suck if they did that, as well as the market being thrown into chaos, readjusting... and everyone losing the exact same amount at the end :roll:

TBH if you die you should lose all your items in my opinion... If you dont come prepared you die and learn the consequences.

TBH if you die you should lose all your items in my opinion... If you dont come prepared you die and learn the consequences.

 

I agree; that would be a fair system. I would like to be able to save one item though.

TBH if you die you should lose all your items in my opinion... If you dont come prepared you die and learn the consequences.

 

I agree; that would be a fair system. I would like to be able to save one item though.

 

That would be fair for places where getting items back is relatively simple, but for places like quests or minigames that disallow graves stones, 3 items seems more fair.

 

 

 

Of course, if we had a durability concept on our armor and weapons, we could lose 25% durability or more on our items. Jagex is pretty keen on being in the front lines of competition with other mmo's, so might as well mimic the death system of Blizzard.

 

 

 

But as pretty much a lot of people have stated, OP, the saradomin helm is more expensive because you lose it during death. If the value of kept on death items was not static (high alch value) and fluctuated (ge value), then the lowest priced item of the set would rise well above the rest (and thus the helm) and continue to dominate until the next lowest item would [bleep]e in price.

 

 

 

Essentially, the [bleep]e in price cycle would continue until it when into a complete cycle when you would lose the helm again.

 

And at the end of the day, you would still be ranting on why you lost the helm. ;)

What makes more sense dying and keeping a helmet or plate legs? Honestly.

Besides, any barrows item that's damaged isn't worth it's trade price anymore, it's worth the alch price, which is something like 50k.

 

So, if it'd go by trade price, stuff like dragon boots would protect over it. Yay?

 

Has anyone even read this?

Besides, any barrows item that's damaged isn't worth it's trade price anymore, it's worth the alch price, which is something like 50k.

 

So, if it'd go by trade price, stuff like dragon boots would protect over it. Yay?

 

Has anyone even read this?

 

Yup, I read (and knew it already). The OP already gave up, though, so I didn't feel the need to bring it up again.

Besides, any barrows item that's damaged isn't worth it's trade price anymore, it's worth the alch price, which is something like 50k.

 

So, if it'd go by trade price, stuff like dragon boots would protect over it. Yay?

 

Has anyone even read this?

 

Yup, I read (and knew it already). The OP already gave up, though, so I didn't feel the need to bring it up again.

 

Mmk. I was wondering why the discussion hadn't already ended :P