January 13, 201115 yr as far as im concerned more ess bots = lower ess price which is more profitable runecrafting With more ess bots usually means more bots making runes as well. I remember going to world 1 or 2 with bots undercutting each other trying to sell deaths and nats. either that or they got the runes buy auto buying from the rune shops at mage bank and port sarim
January 13, 201115 yr as far as im concerned more ess bots = lower ess price which is more profitable runecrafting With more ess bots usually means more bots making runes as well. I remember going to world 1 or 2 with bots undercutting each other trying to sell deaths and nats. either that or they got the runes buy auto buying from the rune shops at mage bank and port sarim That is true, most sellers were getting from shops. But if we have learned anything from any sort of criminal activity(or anything against the rules in runescape), they won't go away. They will evolve and find their profits elsewere, and i see runecrafting a possiblity. Especially when other options are overcrowded already (green dragons and chincompas).
January 13, 201115 yr Yeah the game is ruined by people asking for free stuff. Just like real life is ruined by people asking for free stuff. I mean I basically want to kill myself when I walk past a homeless person and have to ignore his request for money. Oh wait it isn't really bothersome at all, I just walk right past... Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON
January 13, 201115 yr Yeah the game is ruined by people asking for free stuff. Just like real life is ruined by people asking for free stuff. I mean I basically want to kill myself when I walk past a homeless person and have to ignore his request for money. Oh wait it isn't really bothersome at all, I just walk right past...Who said ruined? If you don't feel kinda bad when you ignore a person in need, well, good for you then I suppose. :mellow:(^to be clear, I'm talking about his irl comparison)
January 13, 201115 yr What still makes me laugh is that Jagex are calling the first "vote" a petition. Surely it can't be the people being petitioned against who can create it? :rolleyes:
January 13, 201115 yr What still makes me laugh is that Jagex are calling the first "vote" a petition. Surely it can't be the people being petitioned against who can create it? :rolleyes: Surely the second vote proves that 91% of voters did indeed want the wilderness back. Whether or not Jagex did lie about the first vote being a petition is irrelevant to the fact that the second vote shows without a doubt that over 90% of players want the old systems back.Due to various reasons you can't be sure that there are 90%+ players that want it, but this is irrelevant .. because it clearly shows that MORE people want it, which is enough.
January 13, 201115 yr as far as im concerned more ess bots = lower ess price which is more profitable runecrafting With more ess bots usually means more bots making runes as well. I remember going to world 1 or 2 with bots undercutting each other trying to sell deaths and nats. either that or they got the runes buy auto buying from the rune shops at mage bank and port sarim Wait, what? Will "free-trade" also mean that they will allow stores to sell unlimited quantities of items once again? :unsure:
January 13, 201115 yr What still makes me laugh is that Jagex are calling the first "vote" a petition. Surely it can't be the people being petitioned against who can create it? :rolleyes: Surely the second vote proves that 91% of voters did indeed want the wilderness back. Whether or not Jagex did lie about the first vote being a petition is irrelevant to the fact that the second vote shows without a doubt that over 90% of players want the old systems back.Due to various reasons you can't be sure that there are 90%+ players that want it, but this is irrelevant .. because it clearly shows that MORE people want it, which is enough.No, you can't be sure that 91% of voters wanted the WILDERNESS back.If they had hadA) Wilderness backB) Free trade backC) BOTH backorD) NEITHER backwe'd see some true numbers...Or, even better, the check-box kind of thing they do with other polls.That tiny little bit of extra effort to check the box next to "Wilderness" would probably cause many voters to simply overlook it, while have a "BOTH back" option would have players just go "Heh yeah the Wilderness won't hurt me"... The vote was incredibly skewed for the simple fact that players are willing to accept the BAD that will come with the Wilderness for the GOOD that will come from free trade.
January 13, 201115 yr The vote is systematically biased. You can't even deduce that 7% of people wanted neither back; imagine being someone who wanted Free Trade but not the Wilderness. Do you vote for Free Trade, or not vote for the Wilderness? Some will go one way, some will go the other way depending on how strongly they feel about Free Trade and Wilderness respectively, hence we have bias. This 'vote' is statistically invalid. The only conclusion you can actually draw from this vote is 2% of people don't care, which isn't useful to know at all. The only way you can draw a conclusion about who wants the Wilderness and who wants Free Trade is to treat the two variables seperately, not lump them both together with a 'yes' option. The only practical argument anyone can make against that is that you can't have the Wilderness without also having Free Trade, though this not address people who want Free Trade but not the Wilderness. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules |
January 13, 201115 yr The vote is systematically biased. You can't even deduce that 7% of people wanted neither back; imagine being someone who wanted Free Trade but not the Wilderness. Do you vote for Free Trade, or not vote for the Wilderness? Some will go one way, some will go the other way depending on how strongly they feel about Free Trade and Wilderness respectively, hence we have bias. This 'vote' is statistically invalid. The only conclusion you can actually draw from this vote is 2% of people don't care, which isn't useful to know at all. The only way you can draw a conclusion about who wants the Wilderness and who wants Free Trade is to treat the two variables seperately, not lump them both together with a 'yes' option. The only practical argument anyone can make against that is that you can't have the Wilderness without also having Free Trade, though this not address people who want Free Trade but not the Wilderness.Uhm no, it's a package that always comes together. JAgex stated at the very first replies after wilderness removal that they had to do that because free trade removal without wilderness was meaningless.. So wilderness removal was an unwanted, yet unavoidable side effect from free trade removal.. So the vote is very clear: it is a package.. As without free trade, the old-style-wilderness is stupid. And with free trade the game mechanics which were there from the start of runescape 2 should always return.. Especially as jagex said that the removal was only a side effect! First they came to fishingand I didn't speak out because I wasn't fishing Then they came to the yewsand I didn't speak out because I didn't cut yews Then they came for the oresand I didn't speak out because I didn't collect ores Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak out for me.
January 13, 201115 yr Lol what? What's biased about the poll. You either want them back, or you don't, or you don't care. Old wilderness and free trade can't be separated. So let me get this straight. Old wilderness is all BAD, while free trade is all GOOD? What kind of pre 07 Runescape did you play?By only wanting free trade to come back but not the old wilderness, it just takes away the only legitimate arguement against this issue, that being RWT will bloom. So I really don't see where you guys stand on this...
January 13, 201115 yr Current rate of votes suggests that they will not... I repeat: NOT make the desired number of 1.2m supporters by the time the referendum ends... Discuss... Former Leader of The Tal Shiar Alliance - An Original Tip.it ClanMember of the Wilderness Guardians and Founder of the Silent GuardiansFounder of The Conclave - A Tip.it Clan institutionTip.it Times author (click for all my articles) - When I use the wrong reasons to make the right statement, argue the reason, not the statement.MSSW4 General - Did we kick your ass too?Check us out!==> No seriously, if you like FREE GP, XP and Dung tokens, as well as Community, Opportunity and above all FUN... <==CLICK IT!
January 13, 201115 yr Current rate of votes suggests that they will not... I repeat: NOT make the desired number of 1.2m supporters by the time the referendum ends... Discuss... They said 1m, not 1.2m
January 13, 201115 yr honestly the only thing i don't look forward to about free trade is that all the "can i have some gp" Gives you something to mess with though. :thumbsup:
January 13, 201115 yr Current rate of votes suggests that they will not... I repeat: NOT make the desired number of 1.2m supporters by the time the referendum ends... Discuss... They got over 1.2m votes already. These kinds of things normally pick up when there's not much time left, as people can no longer procrastinate about it, so simple extrapolation isn't accurate. Good try, though. ~ W ~
January 13, 201115 yr @ Troll: they said they wanted a similar number as what they saw in the 'petition', which means 1.2m supporters... @ Willy: Supporters, not votes... Some people voted nay or idc... Current support is at almost 1.1m (under 3k votes from that)... Former Leader of The Tal Shiar Alliance - An Original Tip.it ClanMember of the Wilderness Guardians and Founder of the Silent GuardiansFounder of The Conclave - A Tip.it Clan institutionTip.it Times author (click for all my articles) - When I use the wrong reasons to make the right statement, argue the reason, not the statement.MSSW4 General - Did we kick your ass too?Check us out!==> No seriously, if you like FREE GP, XP and Dung tokens, as well as Community, Opportunity and above all FUN... <==CLICK IT!
January 13, 201115 yr @ Troll: they said they wanted a similar number as what they saw in the 'petition', which means 1.2m supporters... @ Willy: Supporters, not votes... Some people voted nay or idc... Current support is at almost 1.1m (under 3k votes from that)... Alright, fine, supporters, my mistake. Wait, where did they say that they wanted to see a similar number of supporters? I'm not saying you're lying, but I'm just curious. Also, Willy? ~ W ~
January 13, 201115 yr @ Troll: they said they wanted a similar number as what they saw in the 'petition', which means 1.2m supporters... @ Willy: Supporters, not votes... Some people voted nay or idc... Current support is at almost 1.1m (under 3k votes from that)... Trust me, they will implement it whatsoever. Two reasons that make me say this: - If they would now totally discard the project, they would lose their credibility. And with that, a good portion of the player base. It would also stop 'old pkers' and whatnot to come back, meaning a loss in revenue.- If the amount of votes was somewhat reasonable (meaning even like 750k), they would have still implemented it. They just did the referendum so they could blame the players if something went wrong. Are you into DnB or Dubstep? Be sure to check my SOUNDCLOUD and MIXCLOUD, and like me on FACEBOOK to stay up to date!Latest mix: Leuven Goes Out Deejay Contest Winning Set (Dubstep + DnB)
January 13, 201115 yr @ Troll: they said they wanted a similar number as what they saw in the 'petition', which means 1.2m supporters... @ Willy: Supporters, not votes... Some people voted nay or idc... Current support is at almost 1.1m (under 3k votes from that)... Wouldn't 1.1 million Yes votes (supporters) be "Similiar" to 1.2 mil? I'm pretty sure similiar does not mean the same as.
January 13, 201115 yr If Runescape truly has 130 million registered accounts (as Jagex claims), them 1.2 million is less than 1% of that total. If Runescape truly has 10 million active accounts (as Jagex claims), them 1.2 million is about 12% of that total. I'm surprised the turnout is so low, frankly... I've seen people all day long insisting that FT/W is coming back tomorrow, that the GE itself is going away, that rares are going away... :rolleyes: PvP is not for meIn the 3rd Year of the BoycottReal-world money saved since FT/W: Hundreds of DollarsReal-world time saved since FT/W: Thousands of Hours
January 13, 201115 yr They'll add it in anyway. To say this vote has any statistical weight is an intellectual scandal. Unless you're suggesting they restart the whole voting process so that it is statistically accountable, they'll take 91% vs 7% as valid justification, even if the poll design itself is flawed. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules |
January 13, 201115 yr @ Troll: they said they wanted a similar number as what they saw in the 'petition', which means 1.2m supporters... Because a huge majority yes votes isn't enough to sway them? "Oh we only got 1.1m yes votes, tough luck guys..." If you honestly believe that they won't implement FT/old wild you are stupid... I repeat: STUPID I'm just sayin'. Legalize baby punching. Tax and regulate it. Punch babies erry day.
January 13, 201115 yr The vote is systematically biased. You can't even deduce that 7% of people wanted neither back; imagine being someone who wanted Free Trade but not the Wilderness. Do you vote for Free Trade, or not vote for the Wilderness? Some will go one way, some will go the other way depending on how strongly they feel about Free Trade and Wilderness respectively, hence we have bias. This 'vote' is statistically invalid. The only conclusion you can actually draw from this vote is 2% of people don't care, which isn't useful to know at all. The only way you can draw a conclusion about who wants the Wilderness and who wants Free Trade is to treat the two variables seperately, not lump them both together with a 'yes' option. The only practical argument anyone can make against that is that you can't have the Wilderness without also having Free Trade, though this not address people who want Free Trade but not the Wilderness.Uhm no, it's a package that always comes together. JAgex stated at the very first replies after wilderness removal that they had to do that because free trade removal without wilderness was meaningless.. So wilderness removal was an unwanted, yet unavoidable side effect from free trade removal.. So the vote is very clear: it is a package.. As without free trade, the old-style-wilderness is stupid. And with free trade the game mechanics which were there from the start of runescape 2 should always return.. Especially as jagex said that the removal was only a side effect! Lol what? What's biased about the poll. You either want them back, or you don't, or you don't care. Old wilderness and free trade can't be separated. So let me get this straight. Old wilderness is all BAD, while free trade is all GOOD? What kind of pre 07 Runescape did you play?By only wanting free trade to come back but not the old wilderness, it just takes away the only legitimate arguement against this issue, that being RWT will bloom. So I really don't see where you guys stand on this...Seems like Ginger repeated what I said right after I said it, paraphrased in a more intellectual way. :wink: What I don't understand is why you and Pulli insist on the stupidity of an all-or-nothing system. It's obvious to me that if they had separated the options and free trade had still gotten a majority while the Wilderness had gotten a much smaller [and ever-so-likely truer] portion of the votes, JaGEx would have simply kept PvP worlds separate but with 'true drops'.Something like: "An overwhelming majority would like free trade back without the Wilderness. However, supporters of the Wilderness also came in in high numbers, so we'll be converting the existing PvP worlds to the pre-removal drop system. This way, we hope to make both the majority of our player base and the PK'ers happy!"
January 13, 201115 yr Because its Jagex were talking about here.. Critical thinking isn't their strong suite. Be happy were getting free trade and take the other stuff as something to not like but deal with.
January 13, 201115 yr They'll add it in anyway. To say this vote has any statistical weight is an intellectual scandal. Unless you're suggesting they restart the whole voting process so that it is statistically accountable, they'll take 91% vs 7% as valid justification, even if the poll design itself is flawed.Uhm no.. The wilderness returning shouldn't even be the qustion: it was an unwanted side effected of free trade removal.. First they came to fishingand I didn't speak out because I wasn't fishing Then they came to the yewsand I didn't speak out because I didn't cut yews Then they came for the oresand I didn't speak out because I didn't collect ores Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak out for me.
Create an account or sign in to comment