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!"

 

Hmm? Well, the wilderness was removed not because of all the "immature trollish e-gangsters" in it, but because it was a way to RWT. Which meant, it was a part of free trade. Jagex removed staking and the old wilderness ONLY because RWT'ers used it as a way of trading, because they thought they could cover it up as a kill in a way, and not as an unbalanced trade. As a result, the people who got hurt were legitimate players who enjoyed dangerous PvP.

 

Which is why, if they should bring free trade back, they should bring the old wilderness back, and that was the reason why it was taken away. You see what I'm saying?

I don't need the Wilderness to trade a needle for 200m. Your insistence that both are the same thing is just wrong, simple as. It's true that the Wilderness cannot exist without Free Trade, but the reverse isn't true, so they're both different.

I don't need the Wilderness to trade a needle for 200m. Your insistence that both are the same thing is just wrong, simple as. It's true that the Wilderness cannot exist without Free Trade, but the reverse isn't true, so they're both different.

 

But the reason they removed free pking and staking was because of problems with free trade.

 

So if they give us free trade back, it would make sense to also give back the old wilderness.

 

It now makes me think you are very selfish if you only want the free trade but not the wilderness.

I do understand that the removal of the Wilderness was just as unfair as the removal of free trade, but there's really no reason that they can't improve upon it during its reintroduction, especially given what has been said about how the poll isn't the best representation of players' true wishes.

I don't need the Wilderness to trade a needle for 200m. Your insistence that both are the same thing is just wrong, simple as. It's true that the Wilderness cannot exist without Free Trade, but the reverse isn't true, so they're both different.

 

But the reason they removed free pking and staking was because of problems with free trade.

And? What Jagex may or may not have done has nothing to do with someone just not liking the Wilderness, but still liking Free Trade.

 

How does 'it makes sense' prove that Free Trade must have the Wilderness in order to exist?

Well if you read the rest of my post, instead of just the first line. You'd see what I have to say.

I'm not asking for a history lesson what Jagex have done and why they did it. I'm asking you to prove that Free Trade needs the Wilderness to exist.

@GuidesForScapers:

I never said I honestly believe this... I know more than anyone else that this is basicly a giant scam (see the other active poll on this forum section I made), and I'm fascinated by the way people are fooling themselves on some of the issues that have come up the last few weeks...

 

@Cyon & Willy (yes, Willy ;)):

MMG said in a chat that they are hoping to "at least match the numbers seen in the petition"... See

for the vid of that chat (it's the sped up version, for normal speed check the channel of the uploader)...

 

@Ginger:

It doesn't, and I believe the other way around (wilderness needing free trade) is also debatable if drops are adjusted accordingly

@Cyon & Willy (yes, Willy ;)):

MMG said in a chat that they are hoping to "at least match the numbers seen in the petition"... See

for the vid of that chat (it's the sped up version, for normal speed check the channel of the uploader)...

 

That's quite foolish:

Even if we neglect the fact that many people voted for accounts they didn't own, jagex should realize that there will always be less people who vote when they have to log in as when they don't.. Many "can't be bothered" to look up their old account passwords!

I know, Pulli, but this is the blatent lie that Jagex is selling us...

 

Also; if you can be arsed to care about Unbalanced Trade and Dangerous Wild coming back, you can DEFINITELY be arsed to do 2 minutes of work to get your password back...

 

So I asume you voted in my poll too? ;)

I know, Pulli, but this is the blatent lie that Jagex is selling us...

 

Also; if you can be arsed to care about Unbalanced Trade and Dangerous Wild coming back, you can DEFINITELY be arsed to do 2 minutes of work to get your password back...

 

So I asume you voted in my poll too? ;)

Your vote only allows for 1 answer, while all 4 answers are truth I think.

Vote other and explain why you voted other then :)

I'm not asking for a history lesson what Jagex have done and why they did it. I'm asking you to prove that Free Trade needs the Wilderness to exist.

 

I guess technically speaking, it doesn't. But for the reasons I've stated prior, I believe for someone to want only free trade but not the wilderness to come back, is wrong and selfish.

Riiight... you can't prove that Wilderness and Free Trade are one and the same, so you've resorted to the moral highground where anyone who disagrees with one but not the other is "selfish". Whatever. :rolleyes:

 

In any case, you've not been able to prove the vote isn't systematically biased.

Riiight... you can't prove that Wilderness and Free Trade are one and the same, so you've resorted to the moral highground where anyone who disagrees with one but not the other is "selfish". Whatever. :rolleyes:

 

In any case, you've not been able to prove the vote isn't systematically biased.

 

You can't take away free trade without taking away pking... so took them both away. They now realize that plan didn't really work, so they want to restore it. Why in the world would they leave out a huge portion of the game and just bring back free trade. Honestly i think more players are concerned about old wildy than they are about free trade.

 

You ask for evidence that they are one in the same? Is that even the point? The way runescape was supposed to be was to have the old wildernes. But that got taken away, it would be idiotic to just leave what they have in. Yes it has nice mechanics in certin areas but again that's not the point.

 

I am pretty sure he is calling anyone selfish because they want just free trade back but not the wilderness. Why should you get what you want but not anyone else? Sounds pretty selfish to me.

Again with the moral highground stuff. Y'know, killing other players for loot ain't too saintly either, but you don't find me trying to degrade you. That's not what we were talking about either, but there you go.

 

We were talking about how the poll treats the Wilderness and Free Trade as the same thing, drawing the illogical conclusion that 91% of people want Free Trade and the Wilderness back. Just because they were removed over the same issue, and just because the Wilderness required Free Trade to function does not mean that I have to agree with the Wilderness just to believe in Free Trade. Until you prove otherwise, I'll continue to hold that viewpoint.

Selfish or not; give us the chance to vote on each, plz?

 

Since it cannot be proven to be a package deal, we shouldve been able to vote for seperate options...

They should be taken as a package deal becuase they were original gameplay mechanics that jagex choose to have in the first place. If these were some new changes to the game i would agree. But they took both of these out, which is the reason they should both come back.

So because that's how it was before, that's automatically how it ought to be? Why?

So because that's how it was before, that's automatically how it ought to be? Why?

 

Well, old wildy implies free trade, and vice versa. You couldn't have a drop system that gave everything your opponent was carrying, but then have a restrictive trade system.

1,1m Votes on Yes.

Close enough.

So because that's how it was before, that's automatically how it ought to be? Why?

 

"I regularly hear from both the community and the Jagex team that we should reintroduce free trade and the excitement of the old Wilderness, warts and all"

 

Ontop of that it's better bussiness. And again because it was in many ways the very reason some players joined rs, it was taken away. In some ways they deserve it back.

We've establish the link between free trade and wilderness is only one-way, there's no vice versa at all. This is important because if it weren't for It used to be like that", which isn't really an argument so much as an appeal to sentiment, you guys wouldn't have a leg to stand on in saying Wilderness must be released with Free Trade.

 

We also used to have no Wildy ditch/wall/forcefield when free trade was around. Should we put that to the way it was too, just because "that's how it used to be".

Just had a careful analysis of the videos Ts_Stormrage posted. It seems pretty clear that MMG wants a figure of votes "similar" to the original petition, even though it was largely rigged with bots (They just don't seem to care if the original poll/petition was flawed, because they are too arrogant to admit fault). He stated later "We want at least 1m votes to be statistically relevant," which is quite frankly BS, but whatever floats their boat.

 

Mod MMG himself seems to imply that figuring out if you transferred money to your own account is a waste of effort, and rather focus on the more important things, but it's up to the JaGex team.

 

At the current votes of 1.104m "yes," 85k "no," 24k "don't mind," and 1.213m total votes, it's quite likely that JaGex will implement this game-changing update. JaGex claims to have good bot catching abilities, but personally, I think certain bots already has surpassed even JaGex's detection system.

 

I think if JaGex decides to scrap the update because we haven't reached the original figure of votes in the first petition, there will be massive uproar and a relatively large loss of players who had their hopes falsely raised.

 

About Free Trade and the Wilderness; I don't know about you, but I personally feel they are interlinked, so it's logical to vote for both, but if JaGex really wanted to know what players thought, then they should allow all options. But seriously, is there any need? Unless you feel so strongly for one but against another, it seems quite pointless to me, but hey, that's only my opinion.

 

Some questions are still left unanswered. Will there be extremes in the Wilderness, or will it be deemed overpowered, although the Damage Soaking and Torva updates have already arrived? How about untradeables - if JaGex really wanted to bring the Old Wilderness back, will they make untradeables relootable again? (Such as Fire Cape, Torso, Dragon Defender, Chaotic Weaponry, Korasi, etc.)

 

Quite interested to see responses to this post, took like 15 minutes to write >.<

We've establish the link between free trade and wilderness is only one-way, there's no vice versa at all. This is important because if it weren't for It used to be like that", which isn't really an argument so much as an appeal to sentiment, you guys wouldn't have a leg to stand on in saying Wilderness must be released with Free Trade.

 

We also used to have no Wildy ditch/wall/forcefield when free trade was around. Should we put that to the way it was too, just because "that's how it used to be".

uhm Jagex themself said multiple times they didn't want to remove wilderness: but there was no other way round, and they said they had to do it because free trade was to be removed..

 

now that the reason for it's removal would be gone, why wouldn't it return? - there is no reason not to let it return, it was never purposedly removed