An Elitist's View on Crashing

[Troacctid]

Risk can factor into efficiency. If you figure you die an average of once every ~300 hours and you lose 650m every time you die, suddenly your average profit drops by 2m gp/hr. If instead you only risk 10m, that drops to closer to 30k gp/hr. Big difference.

 

Even assuming that you die once every three-hundred hours, which is once every 12.5 days game time, you don't effect your efficiency any unless the knowledge that you're going to die once every 12.5 hours causes you to kill more slowly then you would otherwise. Barring that there's no effect. Your efficiency would only become affected if you died faster then you could replace the items you lose, which leads me to another question: How often do you die when doing GWD?

Um...no. Efficiency and kill speed are not the same--there is a reason you don't see people boss hunting in full Statius. When you lose money, you lose efficiency. If you die and lose X gp an average of once every N hours, your average hourly profit is reduced by X/N gp/hr and your efficiency falls accordingly. Higher risk equals greater loss when you die equals lower overall profits equals lower efficiency. :geek:

 

Who's to say the crasher isn't the victim of overcrowded worlds? Why isn't it just the responsibility of the weaker player to suck it up and back down from a fight he can't win? A lower-level player who sticks around after getting crashed to annoy the crasher sounds to me like more of a griefer than a victim.

 

Because crashing if active while being crashed is passive. To make of someone's analogy earlier, if one Kid A pushes another Kid B off the swing because Kid A is bigger then Kid B, then should Kid B go and lift weights until he's bigger then Kid A (Or Kid C or D or E or F or...) and return the favor?

Okay, I can play the analogy game. Are you a victim if I outbid you in an auction? Are you a victim if we apply for the same job and I get hired over you because I'm better-qualified and have more experience? Are you a victim if we play Magic: the Gathering and I win because I have a better deck than you? :razz:

[Viv]

bandos has always been crashcity if you see a 110 or 120 they wont last long wait til they finish but when everyone has yaks overloads and will last 10+ kills thier its not efficient to wait

 

not efficient for equal abilities to crash eachother either..

 

maybe just dont do bandos at peeak times?

 

armadyl - easy to find world to solo.

 

tds, lots of worlds but no as mny full worlds.

[Sir_Kurity]

...Or Jagex could be smart like every other developer and make boss rooms instanced. With the upcoming party system they will have no excuse not to.

 

What, and all boss items crash.

 

Instanced rooms would suck anyway, this is a multiplayer game for a reason, because its multiplayer. If i can stay in my own instanced boss room for hundreds of hours a day then its not really multiplayer is it.

[Bladewing]

e: double post

[Bladewing]

...Or Jagex could be smart like every other developer and make boss rooms instanced. With the upcoming party system they will have no excuse not to.

 

What, and all boss items crash.

 

Instanced rooms would suck anyway, this is a multiplayer game for a reason, because its multiplayer. If i can stay in my own instanced boss room for hundreds of hours a day then its not really multiplayer is it.

So what if the items crash? That's a price floor, and it's really not efficient. Runescape WOULD be better off with instanced bosses and cheaper drops.

[TheAncient]

...Or Jagex could be smart like every other developer and make boss rooms instanced. With the upcoming party system they will have no excuse not to.

 

What, and all boss items crash.

 

Instanced rooms would suck anyway, this is a multiplayer game for a reason, because its multiplayer. If i can stay in my own instanced boss room for hundreds of hours a day then its not really multiplayer is it.

So what if the items crash? That's a price floor, and it's really not efficient. Runescape WOULD be better off with instanced bosses and cheaper drops.

 

That's really hard to say for sure and kind of comes down to opinion - what's "better"?

 

Even if instanced bosses ever came across Jagex's idea table, I doubt they would consider it just because people would rage over the destruction of Bandos as a status symbol.

[Troacctid]

Instancing is something that would, practically, have to be applied to future bosses rather than retrofitted to existing ones.

[Bladewing]

That's really hard to say for sure and kind of comes down to opinion - what's "better"?

 

Even if instanced bosses ever came across Jagex's idea table, I doubt they would consider it just because people would rage over the destruction of Bandos as a status symbol.

No, it's not opinion. It is a FACT proven by basic economics.

 

That blue triangle is the loss to the Runescape economy because the limit on supply.

[TheAncient]

That's really hard to say for sure and kind of comes down to opinion - what's "better"?

 

Even if instanced bosses ever came across Jagex's idea table, I doubt they would consider it just because people would rage over the destruction of Bandos as a status symbol.

No, it's not opinion. It is a FACT proven by basic economics.

 

That blue triangle is the loss to the Runescape economy because the limit on supply.

 

I know what deadweight loss is, thanks.

 

...So economics can govern personal preference? It's not as if price floors/ceilings are always bad things. There are plenty of real world examples (e.g. utilities, agriculture) which have more or less benefitted from price restrictions. It's situational, and again - depends highly on what you value.

 

Anyway OT: I don't think there are any viable solutions for this overcrowding problem.

 

Best solution would be for jagex to add worlds - but that's unprofitable probably.

Switching to instanced GWD bosses would tank prices - and a lot of noobs would rage.

 

A lot of the better solutions (e.g. time limiting and stuff like that) are too complicated. And when people don't know how things work, they complain.

 

Also, it's not as if lower levels can't mass (10-15+) and go to a LS/CS world for bandos. I haven't been to LS/CS bandos in a while, but I can't imagine that it's THAT crowded. Yeah sure it won't be profitable, but neither is killing Graardor in noob gear. More for the fun I'd imagine.

[Sly_Wizard]

Again - we aren't crashing to be malicious. There's a difference between beating someone to satisfy a desire to be superior, and beating someone because they have something you want.

 

I said nothing about maliciousness. If Kid B pushes Kid A off of the swing because he wants Kid A's swing, then following your logic that's perfectly acceptable, as long as Kid B didn't do it to be malicious.

 

Doesnt matter the noobs are the ones stating how unfair it is to be crashed.

 

Yes, it really does matter. Did you not read the OP?

 

The crasher doesnt care if its full, thats the noobs problem. If the noobs made their way to pvp worlds they wont get crashed and potentially more worlds open for the would be crashers.

 

If the noobs made their way to the PvP worlds and a crasher showed up, then they'd experience the same problem-- plus the added problem of the crasher maybe deciding to attack the noob, on account of the crasher being bigger and badder. Ergo, it's much simpler for the big bad crasher to go to a PvP world where he won't have to worry about being crashed nor anyone PK'ing him because they're bigger and badder.

 

Its a win, win. Please explain to me though why someone who is maxed out and can kill the boss in a fraction of the time would have to go to a pvp world for it to be empty. No they can take your world and force you to risk it on a pvp world. How about that?

 

*points above*

 

Honestly. What is up with all these people thinking they're so great 'cuz they're maxed? I don't go around proclaiming how I have a right to be a [cabbage] in-game 'cuz I've got 34M magic experience, or nearly 50M range experience.

 

Um...no. Efficiency and kill speed are not the same--there is a reason you don't see people boss hunting in full Statius. When you lose money, you lose efficiency. If you die and lose X gp an average of once every N hours, your average hourly profit is reduced by X/N gp/hr and your efficiency falls accordingly. Higher risk equals greater loss when you die equals lower overall profits equals lower efficiency. :geek:

 

Kill speed is everything. When someone says that someone else is being inefficient, it means that they're not obtaining the max number of kills per hour, not that they're not doing something in the most cost-effective way. That's the entire reason why people crash someone else-- because the crasher can kill faster then the crashed. Dying only affects efficiency if you lose items faster then you can replace them, because then you would be relegated to worse armor/weapons, which means fewer kills per hour, or you would have to spend hours reacquiring those items you lost, when you could have spent those hours MH instead, which also reduces your efficiency. That's exactly the same thing I said before.

 

Okay, I can play the analogy game. Are you a victim if I outbid you in an auction? Are you a victim if we apply for the same job and I get hired over you because I'm better-qualified and have more experience? Are you a victim if we play Magic: the Gathering and I win because I have a better deck than you? :razz:

 

Is the relationship between players in Runescape adversarial? Not unless you're PK'ing (and mining to a lesser extent, but Jagex somewhat alleviated that issue by adding ore veins). Otherwise, any kind of adversarial relationship is caused by one party deciding that they want to impede upon another party, not because two parties have entered an activity under the assumption that they'll be competing against each other.

 

Also, instanced rooms would cause the price of an item to fall, regardless of whether or not more items actually enter the game that way, solely because perception will be that more items enter the game with instanced rooms then without.

[TheAncient]

Again - we aren't crashing to be malicious. There's a difference between beating someone to satisfy a desire to be superior, and beating someone because they have something you want.

 

I said nothing about maliciousness. If Kid B pushes Kid A off of the swing because he wants Kid A's swing, then following your logic that's perfectly acceptable, as long as Kid B didn't do it to be malicious.

 

Again - what's wrong with that? Don't mean to flame, but I don't understand how you've addressed this point. Again I use the work analogy. Let's say I have a certain position at a company, and I do a terrible job. Is there anything wrong with my boss laying me off because someone else wants my position and has shown that he can do it better than me? Sometimes that's just how the world works.

 

I'm not advocating this worldview in all cases. But if MHing is as crowded as I claim it is, what's wrong with fighting for what I want?

 

Kill speed is everything. When someone says that someone else is being inefficient, it means that they're not obtaining the max number of kills per hour, not that they're not doing something in the most cost-effective way. That's the entire reason why people crash someone else-- because the crasher can kill faster then the crashed. Dying only affects efficiency if you lose items faster then you can replace them, because then you would be relegated to worse armor/weapons, which means fewer kills per hour, or you would have to spend hours reacquiring those items you lost, when you could have spent those hours MH instead, which also reduces your efficiency. That's exactly the same thing I said before.

 

Your premise (kill speed = efficiency) isn't necessarily valid; what if I say that efficiency is max net expectational gain in GP per hour? Then there's no reason to ignore the expected loss from dying.

 

We're kind of getting into something subjective here, but I'm pretty sure measuring efficiency as max net expectational gain is a better method than measuring kill speed. This example has been brought up before: if I were really "efficient" by your definition I'd be using vesta and overloads for slayer tasks. Also probably not eating at all, because eating slows down attack turns.

 

Is the relationship between players in Runescape adversarial?

 

Yes. I don't think that's a problem, either. As I said before, you're playing an MMO. If you wanted to be social and make friends, why not do it elsewhere? I'd rather much build real life relationships than with people I'll probably never see. I don't mind playing a game where the people aren't friendly - as long as they're not cruel and mean to each other, then that's fine.

[Bladewing]

I know what deadweight loss is, thanks.

 

...So economics can govern personal preference? It's not as if price floors/ceilings are always bad things. There are plenty of real world examples (e.g. utilities, agriculture) which have more or less benefitted from price restrictions. It's situational, and again - depends highly on what you value.

Economics should govern political preference, i.e. Jagex's decisions.

 

When restrictions are put in place, they are [supposedly] to forgo efficiency to achieve some other end. What benefit is there to keeping bandos prices high other than to maintain income inequality (which is a bad thing :?: )?

[Troacctid]

Um...no. Efficiency and kill speed are not the same--there is a reason you don't see people boss hunting in full Statius. When you lose money, you lose efficiency. If you die and lose X gp an average of once every N hours, your average hourly profit is reduced by X/N gp/hr and your efficiency falls accordingly. Higher risk equals greater loss when you die equals lower overall profits equals lower efficiency. :geek:

 

Kill speed is everything. When someone says that someone else is being inefficient, it means that they're not obtaining the max number of kills per hour, not that they're not doing something in the most cost-effective way. That's the entire reason why people crash someone else-- because the crasher can kill faster then the crashed. Dying only affects efficiency if you lose items faster then you can replace them, because then you would be relegated to worse armor/weapons, which means fewer kills per hour, or you would have to spend hours reacquiring those items you lost, when you could have spent those hours MH instead, which also reduces your efficiency. That's exactly the same thing I said before.

No, that's not what efficiency is. Efficiency is a composite of time, money, and xp. For reference, http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Efficiency. Kill speed is NOT everything. Again, this explains the conspicuous absence of Morrigan's Javelins in Armadyl GWD teams.

 

Is the relationship between players in Runescape adversarial?

Players who are competing for the same KBD spawn? Of course it is.

[TheAncient]

When restrictions are put in place, they are [supposedly] to forgo efficiency to achieve some other end. What benefit is there to keeping bandos prices high other than to maintain income inequality (which is a bad thing :?: )?

 

Bandos is a status symbol. It's similar to if Rolls Royce started mass producing their cars. People who own it wouldn't be very happy. Also, people don't like change.

 

I'm sure that if Jagex considered crashing to be a serious issue, they'd have thought of instancing Bandos by now. Not to be haughty, but I'm also pretty sure they'd use similar logic to mine.

[Bladewing]

Bandos is a status symbol. It's similar to if Rolls Royce started mass producing their cars. People who own it wouldn't be very happy. Also, people don't like change.

None of those are good reasons. That's sacrificing the majority's welfare for the minority's desire to feel rich. Also none of these reasons have EVER stopped Jagex from releasing updates.

 

I'm sure that if Jagex considered crashing to be a serious issue, they'd have thought of instancing Bandos by now. Not to be haughty, but I'm also pretty sure they'd use similar logic to mine.

 

I agree, pretty sure Jagex doesn't see it as a problem and doesn't care to mess with it.

[Tim]

Bandos is a status symbol. It's similar to if Rolls Royce started mass producing their cars. People who own it wouldn't be very happy. Also, people don't like change.

Except Bandos HASN'T been a status symbol for a year now. I dunno what rock your training under, but everyday, at least 1/4 of the players I see have Bandos. There are level 115's commonly with full Bandos, doesn't seem very "status-e" when a quarter of the populace have the damn thing.

[TheAncient]

Bandos is a status symbol. It's similar to if Rolls Royce started mass producing their cars. People who own it wouldn't be very happy. Also, people don't like change.

Except Bandos HASN'T been a status symbol for a year now. I dunno what rock your training under, but everyday, at least 1/4 of the players I see have Bandos. There are level 115's commonly with full Bandos, doesn't seem very "status-e" when a quarter of the populace have the damn thing.

 

Sorry for the off topic train. Mods feel free to delete this, I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

 

If Bandos weren't a status symbol, why would people even care to wear it then? If you really cared about strength bonus just wear your fighter torso. Sure it may be common as heck - but so are Coach bags, BMW's, and good alcohol :thumbsup:

[Bladewing]

If Bandos weren't a status symbol, why would people even care to wear it then? If you really cared about strength bonus just wear your fighter torso. Sure it may be common as heck - but so are Coach bags, BMW's, and good alcohol :thumbsup:

- Faster for me to make 20m than to get the points for a torso.

- BCP has better defence and a prayer bonus.

- I can sell it when I'm done, whereas the torso rots in my bank and the time invested cannot be refunded.

[Troacctid]

Bandos is a status symbol. It's similar to if Rolls Royce started mass producing their cars. People who own it wouldn't be very happy. Also, people don't like change.

Except Bandos HASN'T been a status symbol for a year now. I dunno what rock your training under, but everyday, at least 1/4 of the players I see have Bandos. There are level 115's commonly with full Bandos, doesn't seem very "status-e" when a quarter of the populace have the damn thing.

 

Sorry for the off topic train. Mods feel free to delete this, I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

 

If Bandos weren't a status symbol, why would people even care to wear it then? If you really cared about strength bonus just wear your fighter torso. Sure it may be common as heck - but so are Coach bags, BMW's, and good alcohol :thumbsup:

Because Fighter Torso is bad and generally not worth getting, whereas a Bandos Chestplate is arguably the best melee gear for its slot? Also, it looks hella badass.

[Sly_Wizard]

Again - what's wrong with that?

 

The fact that you have to ask in kind of funny.

 

Don't mean to flame, but I don't understand how you've addressed this point. Again I use the work analogy. Let's say I have a certain position at a company, and I do a terrible job. Is there anything wrong with my boss laying me off because someone else wants my position and has shown that he can do it better than me? Sometimes that's just how the world works.

 

You get hired under the assumption that you can perform to a certain level. There is no such assumption in Runescape. When it comes to MH, the only assumptions are that you need to be better then the monster you're attacking; not better then someone else who also wants to attack that monster.

 

I'm not advocating this worldview in all cases. But if MHing is as crowded as I claim it is, what's wrong with fighting for what I want?

 

Because you're pushing the kid off the proverbial swing because you think you're more deserving of it then he is.

 

Your premise (kill speed = efficiency) isn't necessarily valid; what if I say that efficiency is max net expectational gain in GP per hour? Then there's no reason to ignore the expected loss from dying.

 

I say this as nicely as possible, but lol. Come on, now. Which player are you going to try to crash on account of them being inefficient? Player A who kills 20 TD's an hour and spends 100K doing it, or Player B who kills 100 TD's an hour but spends 5M doing it? Unless you're some kind of masochist, you're going to say Player A, even though he spends less killing TD's then does Player B (500 coins per demon killed vs. 50K per demon killed). And why are you going to crash Player A versus Player B? Because Player A kills them five times as slow as Player B, which means you have a much better chance of crashing Player A then Player B. That's the point. Efficiency has to do with kills per hour. Nothing else matters when it comes to trying to crash someone. Nothing. It doesn't matter how much money someone is wasting. If they're getting more kills per hour then you can, you're not going to try to crash them.

 

We're kind of getting into something subjective here, but I'm pretty sure measuring efficiency as max net expectational gain is a better method than measuring kill speed. This example has been brought up before: if I were really "efficient" by your definition I'd be using vesta and overloads for slayer tasks. Also probably not eating at all, because eating slows down attack turns.

 

No. In an online game, the only thing that matters is time. That's why people use overloads and a cannon for slayer, even though it costs more to do so. That's why people altar dragon bones instead of big bones, even though it costs more exponentially to do so then altaring big bones or even baby dragon bones. That's why people burn yews or magics when training firemaking rather then willows and maples, assuming they can afford to do so. And so on and so forth.

 

Yes. I don't think that's a problem, either. As I said before, you're playing an MMO. If you wanted to be social and make friends, why not do it elsewhere? I'd rather much build real life relationships than with people I'll probably never see. I don't mind playing a game where the people aren't friendly - as long as they're not cruel and mean to each other, then that's fine.

 

It's an MMO. So what? I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Is the relationship between players adversarial?

 

Again - what's wrong with that?

 

The fact that you have to ask in kind of funny.

 

Don't mean to flame, but I don't understand how you've addressed this point. Again I use the work analogy. Let's say I have a certain position at a company, and I do a terrible job. Is there anything wrong with my boss laying me off because someone else wants my position and has shown that he can do it better than me? Sometimes that's just how the world works.

 

You get hired under the assumption that you can perform to a certain level. There is no such assumption in Runescape. When it comes to MH, the only assumptions are that you need to be better then the monster you're attacking; not better then someone else who also wants to attack that monster.

 

I'm not advocating this worldview in all cases. But if MHing is as crowded as I claim it is, what's wrong with fighting for what I want?

 

Because you're pushing the kid off the proverbial swing because you think you're more deserving of it then he is.

 

Your premise (kill speed = efficiency) isn't necessarily valid; what if I say that efficiency is max net expectational gain in GP per hour? Then there's no reason to ignore the expected loss from dying.

 

I say this as nicely as possible, but lol. Come on, now. Which player are you going to try to crash on account of them being inefficient? Player A who kills 20 TD's an hour and spends 100K doing it, or Player B who kills 100 TD's an hour but spends 5M doing it? Unless you're some kind of masochist, you're going to say Player A, even though he spends less killing TD's then does Player B (500 coins per demon killed vs. 50K per demon killed). And why are you going to crash Player A versus Player B? Because Player A kills them five times as slow as Player B, which means you have a much better chance of crashing Player A then Player B. That's the point. Efficiency has to do with kills per hour. Nothing else matters when it comes to trying to crash someone. Nothing. It doesn't matter how much money someone is wasting. If they're getting more kills per hour then you can, you're not going to try to crash them.

 

We're kind of getting into something subjective here, but I'm pretty sure measuring efficiency as max net expectational gain is a better method than measuring kill speed. This example has been brought up before: if I were really "efficient" by your definition I'd be using vesta and overloads for slayer tasks. Also probably not eating at all, because eating slows down attack turns.

 

No. In an online game, the only thing that matters is time. That's why people use overloads and a cannon for slayer, even though it costs more to do so. That's why people altar dragon bones instead of big bones, even though it costs more exponentially to do so then altaring big bones or even baby dragon bones. That's why people burn yews or magics when training firemaking rather then willows and maples, assuming they can afford to do so. And so on and so forth.

 

Yes. I don't think that's a problem, either. As I said before, you're playing an MMO. If you wanted to be social and make friends, why not do it elsewhere? I'd rather much build real life relationships than with people I'll probably never see. I don't mind playing a game where the people aren't friendly - as long as they're not cruel and mean to each other, then that's fine.

 

It's an MMO. So what? I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Is the relationship between players adversarial?

 

No, that's not what efficiency is. Efficiency is a composite of time, money, and xp. For reference, http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Efficiency. Kill speed is NOT everything. Again, this explains the conspicuous absence of Morrigan's Javelins in Armadyl GWD teams.

 

I know what efficiency is, and is Runescape efficiency relates to time. There's a reason people consider it efficient to train slayer with a cannon then without, even though it costs a hell of a lot more to train slayer via the use of a cannon then without.

 

Players who are competing for the same KBD spawn? Of course it is.

 

As I stated in my post, such a relationship only exists because one party decides that they want to impede on another. Most boss monsters are in multi-combat because they were designed to be killed with a team-- not so two people could compete to see who is the better player.

[TheAncient]

Sly, no offense, but I seriously think you're just trying to troll. I can't really answer any of your claims because I don't even think we're on the same page... If you really are insistent on disagreeing, just choose not to respond. At this point I think it's obvious we're going nowhere.

 

So if I were a boot camp trainer, would I feel bad if one of my trainees had a mental breakdown because of me?

 

Social expectations depend situationally.

 

Erm, I would hope you would feel bad yes? But i don't quite get how that relates, please explain?

 

We are all on equal terms in this game. We all pay roughly the same, we all play for hopefully the same reasons (having fun, wasting time etc). We should all treat each other with basic respect we would if meeting another person on the street, as that is basically what we are doing.

 

Like I said - social expectations depend situationally:

 

If I were a boot camp trainer and I was mean to a trainee, and they broke down because of my harshness, did I do something socially wrong? Not really. In that scenario we expect the boot camp trainer to be mean. I'm just doing my job, and I wouldn't change anything about what I did - because society as a whole would agree with me.

 

The point of the analogy is to highlight that whether or not you're supposed to be "nice" to people depends on your expectations of the context. I'm claiming you shouldn't expect people to be nice to you on an MMO. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with not being nice to people on an MMO. That is, of course, unless you know them in real life, because then your relationship is totally different.

 

Using your analogy of random people on the street: If I'm about to go to a job interview but am running late, and a guy in front of me called for the same taxi I called for just a few seconds later, I would have no regrets fighting for that taxi seat because I feel I deserve the taxi more than him.

 

Am I disrespecting the other person? Not really. Am I being malicious? No. Am I being nice? No. I'm just doing what I think is best for me in the situation, and in that specific context (a random street corner) it's generally socially acceptable to do so. Call it selfish, but I don't think it's a problem when the other people are rando's. The same attitude pervades, for example, NYC, and I don't really see why it's a problem.

 

However, say I'm on vacation in a popular tourist area. Most of the vacationers' expectations are to have a nice trip and not really to be bothered. Maybe even have one or two amicable conversations with another tourist. In those cases, the social expectation is for you to be nice and friendly. In those cases, butting in and taking someone's taxi is out of societal expectations, and in those cases you are in the wrong.

 

Again: I'm not advocating to be nonsensically mean to someone, because that ends up bothering you and is a mess to deal with.

[Bladewing]

There's a race being held with a cash price of $100. One person sees the advertisement, and enters the race. I show up to register after him. I am a much faster runner, and we both know this. Is it unethical for me to enter the race, given that he was there first? By your logic I should opt not to contest because it would be pushing him off the proverbial swing because I want the prize.

[Sir_Kurity]

So what if the items crash? That's a price floor, and it's really not efficient. Runescape WOULD be better off with instanced bosses and cheaper drops.

 

Well, other than everyone with a boss item raging because they just lost half there wealth... Like i know jagex has a habit of pissing people off with new updates, but theres no reason to add more to the mix...

 

... All boss items being stupidly common because everyone with the stats to boss hunt can and will, so its no longer limited by things like numbers of worlds or competeting with other boss hunters.

 

Plus, you have no real motivation to hunt bosses with others, bosses are generally meant to be hunted in a team, thats why they are all multi-combat. With no competition hunting with a friend would really just slow you both down, why not just hunt individually in your own little instanced boss room. By comparison right now you have a motivation to hunt with a friend because you are less likely to get crashed.

 

Dont get me wrong, i think the prices on many items are downright ridiculous, but instanced boss rooms are not the way to go about it.

[Sly_Wizard]

There's a race being held with a cash price of $100. One person sees the advertisement, and enters the race. I show up to register after him. I am a much faster runner, and we both know this. Is it unethical for me to enter the race, given that he was there first? By your logic I should opt not to contest because it would be pushing him off the proverbial swing because I want the prize.

 

You enter a race knowing that only one person can win. It's an implicit assumption attached to the activity. People seem to be under some kind of illusion that boss monsters are in multi-combat because they were designed in order for people to prove how much better they are then someone. They weren't. They're that way because they were designed to be team activities, which is why-- once upon a time, at least-- Jagex was insistent on making sure that said NPC's couldn't be solo'ed.

[Bladewing]

You kill a boss knowing that only one person can get the drop.

 

GWD bosses are in multicombat so that the minions can pile you and so you can use familiars.