Tip.It Times - 9th January 2011

[AirWales]

I would like to compliment the writer of the first article on summing up pretty much everything I think about RuneScape/Jagex how it is today.

 

I could type a whole rant here on how Jagex should do it differently for the sake of their loyal fan base, but lets be honest, there's nothing which has been said a thousand times already.

 

Thanks for the good read!

[Ts_Stormrage]

Air Wales; Sure thing, spread the word and who knows what might happen...

 

Sorry that it did not provide as much discussion value as my articles usually do ;)

 

 

And yes, Earth Poet, while reporting bots or anyone for that matter seems to be awesully restricted, I'm hoping against hope that jagex will actually implement a system that truly detects all bots...

 

Its up to them to permban them then, and not give em multiple chances...

 

 

 

Which is something I completely forgot to add to my article...

 

Jagex stated that they are giving people 2nd and 3rd chances for botting in the hopes that they would not lose revenue over people quitting... But wouldn't it cost much much more to have each bot-suspect account looked at and then decided upon wether to Ban it, remove some XP/GP, and in the latter case how much and of which levels?

 

Wouldn't a simple (hell yes to automation on this) BOT = BAN rule not free up much more manpower that is now used to determine punishments?

 

Or, and this is what I fear, are there already some predetermined set of rules when to ban and when not to ban? Say, when you are, or at some point have been a subscriber?

[Flabberwocky]

[spoiler=Response to Rsvote]Rsvote,

 

I would like to thank you for reading the article however I disagree with the generalization that you made of it. Most specifically your statement that I somehow articulated that Jagex has invented some "super special awesome technology they've obtained which many people are happy about, but I worry this could distract from other super cool things." Nowhere do I say that they have produced some silver bullet to combat the threat of Real World Trading or Bots to be able to say that Free Trade and the Wilderness could return.

 

Based on the context and the reasons Jagex cited to remove the Wilderness and Free Trade however I did conclude the article saying "By understanding the history and context of the removal of free trade and the wilderness in the first place, we can see that the referendum represents a company confident enough to face the menace of RWT and bots and fight it successfully - a question that Jagex must have answered." That sentence was not a declaration of confidence but rather something that I believe that Jagex would have, and I said in the final sentence "must have" answered so that they could even offer this Referendum for the players. If I had phrased this as a question at the end perhaps this confusion would have been avoided. I had made it a statement as a stylistic choice because I felt that the piece focused very much so on the history of the game in 2007 and how things moved to the present day situation with the Grand Exchange and "New Wilderness" it would be a reasonable statement to conclude. And finally, I did not choose to ask this question to the players because this is a question that Jagex must have had prepared an adequate answer for. It is their job to supply all parts of this answer they can disclose to us, the players. as well, and tell us how we can help.

 

In regards to your statement that it would have been better for me to simply say: "Go read all of the previous Jagex announcements relating to this topic and then go gossip with a random RS player for 20 minutes"

 

I have friends that have played for years, many of them do not have the urge to go back through and read all those newsposts, all those dev blogs, to read thousands and thousands of words on the subject. I believe it is the purpose of good journalism to collect that massive mountain of information and provide it in an understandable and readable manner for those who may not seek to pour through all those documents.

 

I know many friends who play RuneScape and have played since 2007 and far, far, earlier even, and when I talked to them about what they remembered, many of them wished to understand the reasoning behind the removal of Free Trade and the Wilderness. I too, did not like the removal of Free Trade and the Wilderness, it devastated the Guild I was in at the time, and many of my best friends and players I trained with and had a great deal of fun with left the game because of it. To reply "Bots" to them certainly would have answered the question. But it would have not given the full context and seriousness of the situation. I wrote the article because I knew that some people would appreciate having someone go through all these documents and from them write one piece that summarized and explained the reason behind it adequately for them.

 

I have friends who started playing after the removal of Free Trade and the Wild in 2008. They do not understand what the time was like before Free Trade and the Wilderness, and many of them wanted to know why, but did not want to go through the mountains of newsposts and dev blogs that I referred them to. This was a piece that I wrote for them that I hoped would shine some light on the history of the game and have them understand in general, what was going on in RuneScape up to that point that made for a change that so many people have been complaining about.

 

Finally, I provided those newsposts and dev blog references at the end because I know many types of people read the Tip.it times, and some of them would certainly enjoy reading through those documents themselves firsthand to draw their own conclusion.

 

[spoiler=Response to Earth Poet]Earth Poet,

 

On the point where you made in regards to not going into more detail on the changes in the past three years ago and adjustments by Jagex and the Games Industry that may have made this Referendum possible I certainly could have gone into more. I did not. For that I apologize. Ultimately I felt that this was a piece about RuneScape, to discuss the subject at length would change the nature of the piece whose purpose is to talk about the history of the time period and specifically JAGEX's reasoning behind the removal of Free Trade and the Wilderness to a broad piece on Real World Trading and Gold Farming in general, something that I do not want to do and that if you are seriously interested in the topic, can find many excellent pieces on said subject. In addition, I wrote this piece for a paper on the RuneScape Official Forums, and on the RSOF we are not allowed to name other MMOs (although that rule has been relaxed since 2009, but they have never truly clarified what is allowed to be discussed and not allowed to be discussed in stone) and at the same time, discussing litigation and other hairy topics may have endangered the Magazine thread on the Official Forums; something I did not want to happen. I know Tip.it's rules are more relaxed on this and I could have expanded the piece from the version I wrote on the Magazine to discuss this, but my purpose on the piece was not to write a piece on the games industry as a whole, but to focus specifically on RuneScape.

 

Regardless, you did say that "this is exactly where I should've went into more detail" so I will try to in as brief a manner as I can in a forum post while not scrimping on the details:

 

To me I have 3 changes (among many) that have occurred since 2007 that are helping make the situation palatable, but not perfect for Jagex to offer the return of Free Trade and the Wilderness again.

Maturation and Growth of the Online Games Market over the past Decade (especially since '07)

 

Online Gaming has gone beyond EverQuest and RuneScape, there are more games that require an internet connection than ever, and more MMOs and online worlds than ever. I discussed on Page 1 with Strilmus some of the MMOs that emerged in the past couple of years that have adjusted and evolved to keep up with the times. Zynga's Farmville, Cityville, etc. – the emergence of social networking games, EVE Online, Lord of the Rings Online, AION, Guild Wars, MapleStory, Warhammer 40k, Age of Conan, ad nauseum, - the list of MMOs available in 2000 vs. 2010 is bigger than ever, especially as many of these games some of which I have named have been around just as long or almost as long as RuneScape have come to mature as well.

 

 

 

Upcoming games like Guild Wars 2, Star Wars: the Old Republic, Jagex's own Stellar Dawn, etc. will only increase market competition. To bring back a mechanic that many of its player base has been loath to part with that still remain quite vocal about it all these years later may be a good weapon in an arsenal of tools to keep RuneScape fresh in an even more competitive market than ever.

 

Jagex has matured as a games company

 

Ever since Mark Gerhard has become CEO to replace Geoff Iddison who was appointed in late 2007 (the former PayPal CEO brought in to lead Jagex) things have shifted back towards caring more about being a games developer in a pretty vocal way. RuneFest is one of the biggest examples in recent years. Look back on the updates, and if folks have played since 2007, remember what the player attitude was like towards what Jagex was doing in RuneScape during that time period and then look at the shift shift in tone since 2009 and you will see that 2007 all the way up to February of 2009 look like some sort of dark age for the game. Ever since Mark Gerhard has gotten back I believe RuneScape has gotten a second wind, and so has Jagex and the company as a whole.

 

I believe that a CEO has a major impact upon the culture and direction of a company, whether through direct or indirect action. Iddison was an outside brought in to lead Jagex, a businessman through and through, his big prior experience as successful leader in PayPal makes him a businessman I would respect, but ultimately, I believe he was not the right person to lead a games company like Jagex, where their financial success stemmed from their love for games (a passion echoed over and over at Runefest).

 

Under Gerhard's tenure we saw immediate changes, for one he wrote a letter to the players announcing sweeping changes in the approach Jagex would take for its players in RuneScape quite soon after his appointment. He has participated in Q&As. He was at RuneFest with everyone else. He even got interviewed by Excl for RuneScape YouTubers.

 

They've grown in staff, they've grown with the times, and they're more open again than ever.

Legal Developments in the past several years, still uncharted territory:

 

Several lawsuits have increased in legal action by Games companies in defending their intellectual property. I must disclose first that I am no legal expert, but even with just general knowledge I can say that one of the most important things that court rulings can set in the United States and abroad is precedent, which means that based on the reason for a specific case being won, can be cited again by other litigants against other offenders. The more victories the games industry racks up, the more legal precedent it may have in pursuing such cases.

 

 

 

For example in Blizzard vs. MDY, Blizzard successfully won a lawsuit against the makers and distributors of an illegal botting tool used to circumvent their anti-cheating technology. The court ordered them to stop distribution of the software. The court ruled because the makers had violated the Terms of Service for Blizzard 's World of Warcraft players it is called an "End User License Agreement" which you may be familiar with if you have just skipped and clicked "accept" whenever one of those things pop up when installing a new piece of software or licensed technology.

 

Jagex is also proving to be a fierce fighter in the courts to protect its intellectual property; for example in a suit filed by PalTalk Holdings Inc, which sued many major companies including Blizzard, Microsoft, Sony, and more for violating a patent which it supposedly had on online data sharing between networked computers, where Microsoft infamously settled with the company for an undisclosed sum, Jagex fought to the end. In their press release Mark Gerhard said of the case angrily that it forced the comment to "incur a seven digit expense and waste over a year of management time on a case with absolutely no merit". Will this expensive price tag stop Jagex from fighting lawsuits and continuing to pursue in court cases against its intellectual property? As a business, it will probably have to continue to do so if it becomes enough of a threat.

 

 

Unfortunately the law is still murky as a tool to prevent people from selling or distributing this illegal software, as there are enormous costs with every lawsuit. Blizzard has noted in its filings (amongst their grievances) that they have spent hundreds of millions supporting their legal team. Results for Jagex in recent litigation to defend their intellectual property have not been too positive. This is an area I would love for someone with legal experience (whether in the US or abroad) who plays to shed some light on it. It is an expensive process, and as long as games companies take hard-line stances on Real World Trading the pile of legal cases is only likely to grow.

 

Earth, I believe I answered your second piece of criticism in my reply to RSvote.

 

In response to your third point of criticism:

 

How are you so certain? Behind the references, your article is still based on supposition. You failed to adequately support such a crucial statement. Most players already understand the significance of the referendum, and if they didn't live through it, then they heard the historical accounts ad nauseam. What everybody wants to know is what has changed since '07. How will things be different? If sending in those abuse reports in '07 did little to stem the tide of bots, why would it change anything now? In fact, the sister article this week even states that it would be impossible to report bots since they revamped the report system. So much for doing our part.

 

I acknowledge that statement was a supposition, you are correct by saying it was. By pointing to the thread RWT posed in 2007 I hoped readers would assume with me that in order for them to offer this Referendum again seriously that they would have prepared before they offered this. My purpose in this piece was not to answer those questions you are asking however. I will repeat again my purpose in this article is to to provide the history of the time period and specifically JAGEX's reasoning behind the removal of Free Trade and the Wilderness, which in turn adds another level of depth to this referendum more than the immediate assumption that "Oh my Goodness, Jagex is finally listening to everyone's complaints about the removal of free trade and the wildy." They must have thought very seriously about the RWT question before they presented this referendum to us.

 

If you feel that this was a foolish assumption for me to make, I acknowledge your criticism of me for doing so.

 

I can only hope that as the referendum is leaning towards an overwhelming vote YES for their return that Jagex will hold a Q&A, release more information, explain to us how they are preparing for the return of Free Trade and the Wilderness – especially in regards to combating RWT and Bots.

 

 

 

In closing, I would like to say that I come from an old school of thought where I believe a point made, however well articulated the argument may be, deserves a respectful, and if possible, complete answer. I believe that by setting aside the time to read through my article and then to post on the forum, even if not with the most positive of words I respect some of the points you have made. I have tried my best to provide you with an adequate explanation and response to points of criticism you both raised, and acknowledge where I was indeed weaker in my piece. If you have read through my entire response to your criticism, I thank you again deeply for setting aside your time to do so.

 

 

If you have additional questions, etc.

 

 

Please do not hesitate to PM me.

 

Thank you if you've taken the time again to read.

[Earth_Poet]

@Flabberwocky: Thank you for your detailed response. I have read it, but I need some time to form a proper response.

 

@Ts Stormrage: Do you really think goldfarmers will care about statwipes?

[X3EN]

It is rather interesting to read a full scale article about the fact that community is declining... NOT.

 

The community is declining, first of all in terms of quantity. There's no need to write a large article how it affects the quality of the leftover.

[Rsvote]

 

I would like to thank you for reading the article however I disagree with the generalization that you made of it. Most specifically your statement that I somehow articulated that Jagex has invented some "super special awesome technology they've obtained which many people are happy about, but I worry this could distract from other super cool things." Nowhere do I say that they have produced some silver bullet to combat the threat of Real World Trading or Bots to be able to say that Free Trade and the Wilderness could return.

 

Fine. I apologise.

 

Based on the context and the reasons Jagex cited to remove the Wilderness and Free Trade however I did conclude the article saying "By understanding the history and context of the removal of free trade and the wilderness in the first place, we can see that the referendum represents a company confident enough to face the menace of RWT and bots and fight it successfully - a question that Jagex must have answered." That sentence was not a declaration of confidence but rather something that I believe that Jagex would have, and I said in the final sentence "must have" answered so that they could even offer this Referendum for the players. If I had phrased this as a question at the end perhaps this confusion would have been avoided. I had made it a statement as a stylistic choice because

 

I felt that the piece focused very much so on the history of the game in 2007 and how things moved to the present day situation with the Grand Exchange and "New Wilderness" it would be a reasonable statement to conclude.

 

I think this was a problem with it. You did focus very much on the games news articles at a very peripheral level and gave only ambiguous references to the outside context (which to be honest, was my grand problem with this article), which warrants considerably more attention than this piece gifted.

 

And finally, I did not choose to ask this question to the players because this is a question that Jagex must have had prepared an adequate answer for. It is their job to supply all parts of this answer they can disclose to us, the players. as well, and tell us how we can help.

 

Jagex never really cracked transparency. I do wonder if the best answer we'll get has already been given (basically that they have some new software which apparently makes the old system sustainable).

 

In regards to your statement that it would have been better for me to simply say: "Go read all of the previous Jagex announcements relating to this topic and then go gossip with a random RS player for 20 minutes"

 

I have friends that have played for years, many of them do not have the urge to go back through and read all those newsposts, all those dev blogs, to read thousands and thousands of words on the subject. I believe it is the purpose of good journalism to collect that massive mountain of information and provide it in an understandable and readable manner for those who may not seek to pour through all those documents.

 

I know many friends who play RuneScape and have played since 2007 and far, far, earlier even, and when I talked to them about what they remembered, many of them wished to understand the reasoning behind the removal of Free Trade and the Wilderness. I too, did not like the removal of Free Trade and the Wilderness, it devastated the Guild I was in at the time, and many of my best friends and players I trained with and had a great deal of fun with left the game because of it. To reply "Bots" to them certainly would have answered the question. But it would have not given the full context and seriousness of the situation. I wrote the article because I knew that some people would appreciate having someone go through all these documents and from them write one piece that summarized and explained the reason behind it adequately for them.

 

I can accept that without criticism in itself; indeed there's much value in writing reports/situation summaries. It's the fact you didn't give much (if anything) else in a blog which was about "understanding the context"; there are other contextual factors (Jagex's financial situation, etc), some of which you did indeed give offhanded references to (the legal scenario, for instance). I have read your reply to Earth Poet, and I can understand your reasoning, but fansites are not bound by Jagex's rules and it's a shame appropriate modifications couldn't have been made for a more full understanding of the context as this is what many of your readers will not be aware of/not have time to research.

 

I have friends who started playing after the removal of Free Trade and the Wild in 2008. They do not understand what the time was like before Free Trade and the Wilderness, and many of them wanted to know why, but did not want to go through the mountains of newsposts and dev blogs that I referred them to. This was a piece that I wrote for them that I hoped would shine some light on the history of the game and have them understand in general, what was going on in RuneScape up to that point that made for a change that so many people have been complaining about.

 

Finally, I provided those newsposts and dev blog references at the end because I know many types of people read the Tip.it times, and some of them would certainly enjoy reading through those documents themselves firsthand to draw their own conclusion.

 

You answered most of my criticisms in your reply to Earth Poet, but I have tried to integrate my attitudes into a commentary of the reply which you had intended for me. I now see the logic in your decisions, but I still don't think they were correct; you didn't give enough.

[Flabberwocky]

Rsvote,

 

I intended to write out a reply to both of you hopefully to address both of your concerns at once, especially considering you agreed with most of Earth's opinions. However because of the length of the response, and to be honest, I was worried that a giant wall of text would prove intimidating I broke it into two individual portions to make sure it was more readable.

 

I think the major issue you have with my piece remains that you do wish I could have talked more broadly about industry as a whole and the lack of direct citations. Unfortunately that is beyond the scope of my intention with the piece. I wanted to give the RuneScape perspective in 2007 and I admit that I flirted with exploring the topic much more broadly. But I feel such an effort would produce a piece that would have been far more lengthier, far more prone to error, and far more like a research paper than a summary. Many people were excited about the return of Free Trade and the Wilderness and in the community in which I was part of - which I freely admit this piece was intended for in the first place, aimed immediately to talk ecstatically about how the removal of the Grand Exchange focused far too much on the positives whilst not even mentioning the potential threats that Jagex will have to talk to us about - which to me is the RWT threat, something we will have to certainly prepare for.

 

I wanted to provide the RuneScape perspective and I think by hinting at the broader scope of things when I originally wrote it to be as a conversation starter for those larger industry trends. I think that I should have chosen the wording of the subtitle to the article more carefully to clarify that when I said "To understand the importance of this referendum one needs to understand the reasons for which the Wilderness and free trade were removed in the first place. This piece attempts to do so by examining the history of the period leading up to the removal of free trade and the Wilderness." I was referring specifically to the decisions made by Jagex and in RuneScape and not seeking to do an industry-wide observation piece. I did make an assumption when I submitted the piece to Tip.it that people would see it as a RuneScape focused piece.

 

I think if after reading this piece that one of your criticisms (which I optimistically hoped would be given as a suggestion though :pray:) was for people to ask "how is the situation in RuneScape similar to other things going on in the industry against RWT" or to chime in (if they had read pieces on it) with their own references to pieces on the subject - by saying that my references to these industry changes " warrants considerably more attention than this piece gifted. " I think while missing the purpose of the piece, does really achieve one of the goals I had for the piece - for people to think about this as one of the big industry challenges for MMOs and how they've tried to address/combat it over the past several years.

 

Thanks for seeing the logic and reasoning behind the piece. Ultimately I think your main criticism stems from the fact that the piece left you wanting of more information. As I said this piece did not say Jagex had a silver bullet to solve the RWT problem, I will say this piece was not a silver bullet to answer and provide explanations on the level you are seeking. The best the piece can do is to provide the RuneScape perspective in 2007 to remind people of the threat that put in the updates that so many RuneScapers based on the referendum have been eager to repeal in the first place. I respect your decision if you feel my logic, whilst reasonable is ultimately incorrect - but I feel that one of the most important things pieces like this can do is "start" discussion on the subject, not be the be all end all. I know that I would not want to spend all my time acknowledging and responding to criticism - especially if the main issue appears to be "not enough information".

 

I believe your ultimate grievance lies outside the purpose of my piece (which perhaps would have benefited better as a series on the subject, which was what I originally intended it to be - but I can't explore a subject like this for the paper on the RSOF, and I don't know if the Editorial Panel would be so interested in such a series from a nonstaff member) . I can only conclude by saying that the Tip.it commenting community is knowledgeable enough to provide the answers to acknowledge a piece for its merits, and to continue the discussion beyond the article itself with its active forum community. In fact, if you feel you can address the portions you feel "I didn't give enough" on, absolutely write your own submission for the Times, I would look forward to reading it!

[Rsvote]

Rsvote,

 

I intended to write out a reply to both of you hopefully to address both of your concerns at once, especially considering you agreed with most of Earth's opinions. However because of the length of the response, and to be honest, I was worried that a giant wall of text would prove intimidating I broke it into two individual portions to make sure it was more readable.

 

I think the major issue you have with my piece remains that you do wish I could have talked more broadly about industry as a whole and the lack of direct citations. Unfortunately that is beyond the scope of my intention with the piece. I wanted to give the RuneScape perspective in 2007 and I admit that I flirted with exploring the topic much more broadly. But I feel such an effort would produce a piece that would have been far more lengthier, far more prone to error, and far more like a research paper than a summary. Many people were excited about the return of Free Trade and the Wilderness and in the community in which I was part of - which I freely admit this piece was intended for in the first place, aimed immediately to talk ecstatically about how the removal of the Grand Exchange focused far too much on the positives whilst not even mentioning the potential threats that Jagex will have to talk to us about - which to me is the RWT threat, something we will have to certainly prepare for.

 

I wanted to provide the RuneScape perspective and I think by hinting at the broader scope of things when I originally wrote it to be as a conversation starter for those larger industry trends. I think that I should have chosen the wording of the subtitle to the article more carefully to clarify that when I said "To understand the importance of this referendum one needs to understand the reasons for which the Wilderness and free trade were removed in the first place. This piece attempts to do so by examining the history of the period leading up to the removal of free trade and the Wilderness." I was referring specifically to the decisions made by Jagex and in RuneScape and not seeking to do an industry-wide observation piece. I did make an assumption when I submitted the piece to Tip.it that people would see it as a RuneScape focused piece.

 

I think if after reading this piece that one of your criticisms (which I optimistically hoped would be given as a suggestion though :pray:) was for people to ask "how is the situation in RuneScape similar to other things going on in the industry against RWT" or to chime in (if they had read pieces on it) with their own references to pieces on the subject - by saying that my references to these industry changes " warrants considerably more attention than this piece gifted. " I think while missing the purpose of the piece, does really achieve one of the goals I had for the piece - for people to think about this as one of the big industry challenges for MMOs and how they've tried to address/combat it over the past several years.

 

Thanks for seeing the logic and reasoning behind the piece. Ultimately I think your main criticism stems from the fact that the piece left you wanting of more information. As I said this piece did not say Jagex had a silver bullet to solve the RWT problem, I will say this piece was not a silver bullet to answer and provide explanations on the level you are seeking. The best the piece can do is to provide the RuneScape perspective in 2007 to remind people of the threat that put in the updates that so many RuneScapers based on the referendum have been eager to repeal in the first place. I respect your decision if you feel my logic, whilst reasonable is ultimately incorrect - but I feel that one of the most important things pieces like this can do is "start" discussion on the subject, not be the be all end all. I know that I would not want to spend all my time acknowledging and responding to criticism - especially if the main issue appears to be "not enough information".

 

I believe your ultimate grievance lies outside the purpose of my piece (which perhaps would have benefited better as a series on the subject, which was what I originally intended it to be - but I can't explore a subject like this for the paper on the RSOF, and I don't know if the Editorial Panel would be so interested in such a series from a nonstaff member) . I can only conclude by saying that the Tip.it commenting community is knowledgeable enough to provide the answers to acknowledge a piece for its merits, and to continue the discussion beyond the article itself with its active forum community. In fact, if you feel you can address the portions you feel "I didn't give enough" on, absolutely write your own submission for the Times, I would look forward to reading it!

 

As you clearly anticipate, I do not retract my desire for more to be given to the Runescape community on one of the larger fan-bases, and (since you suggested it) if I did have the time, I would have indeed composed a piece on the larger context; unfortunately I do not have the time. However, I do appreciate and accept your stance/decision in regards to this article, even if I still hold that it's a shame that more couldn't have been given.

 

Thank you for taking the time to reply on multiple occassions. I didn't take offence to the reply being split somewhat, by the way.

[Earth_Poet]

@Flabberwocky

 

[hide=]I did not know that your article was originally intended for the RSOF. I can understand why you may have needed to omit certain information. I read your reply to Rsvote, and the one problem is that you can't contain this topic entirely within the scope of the game, because the reasoning behind the decisions came from outside factors. You can't adequately explain why Jagex chose to implement the '07 updates without discussing what was happening in the real world, and the rest of the industry. Therefore, it would also be impractical to keep the scope of reasoning behind this referendum contained within Runescape. However, I do understand why this would be a little more dangerous of a topic on the RSOF.

 

Also, it may have been presumptuous of me to believe that all players should already know about the history. There may be a few players who’ve been living under a rock these past three years. Personally, I feel it’s beating the cliché out of a dead horse. I wonder if the Tip.It Times has even managed to go a month without at least mentioning the ’07 updates in some form. 10 December actually began covertly a couple of months prior to the updates with the removal of staking, the party room, and the addition of the GE (along with its trade limits), and the event lasted long after the updates as Jagex spent most of ’08 creating content to fill the void. If someone is still unaware of how big the update was, then all I would have to do is kindly direct them to this wiki page: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Pay_to_PK_Riot

 

So if your purpose was to summarize the history of the ’07 update, then I suppose it’s beneficial that players are informed, and have a condensed reference to guide them. However, you did take it one step further. The extremes that Jagex took in ’07 do not adequately explain their reasoning to retract their decision today.

 

Perhaps I am a greater cynic of Jagex than you. I never once thought, “Oh, Jagex is finally listening to its players.” I’ve watched the company’s philosophy slowly shift over the last couple of years. Jagex has some history of being disingenuous with its player base. Even this poll has smelled fishy from the start, and a lot of players are waiting to see what the catch to all of this is. To suddenly spring up a poll about the most controversial and most discussed event in the history of the game, and then to feign surprise at the level of response it receives either means they are not as in touch with the community as it may seem, or they are being disingenuous at this very moment.

 

Thank you for the other information I suggested that you provide though. Two very big things stand out in my eyes. First, Jagex is facing tougher competition, and a gradually declining player base. There will always be a natural turnover rate in players quitting, but I believe there is evidence to suggest that Jagex is having a more difficult time attracting new players and keeping them, which means not enough new players are joining the game to replace the older players that eventually leave. Second, Stellar Dawn is on the horizon. Would it be safe to say that the initial success of the new MMO will significantly depend on the interest of the Runescape players? I believe that at least some reasoning behind this referendum has been to generate some cheap buzz.

 

Of course, this is all conjecture as well. There were a lot of angry players after ’07 (including myself), but I thought maybe we had finally weathered that storm. The questions I’m anxious about, and I know a lot of the community as well, is: Why now? What has changed? Most importantly, what are they up to? They're asking for a blind vote as it stands.

 

Edit:

 

As I said, I went back and read your responses to Rsvote as well, and you've already addressed most of the issues. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I fully understand that what I am demanding is beyond your ability, and therefore can seem unfair. Only Jagex can write that article. I do hope Jagex can answer some of these questions. Until then, I guess we'll see what happens in a couple of days.[/hide]

[cultjunky]

Firstly, let me say thank you for two very interesting articals.

 

In regard to "Come on", I agree, the playing community isn't the same as it was in year dot. Equally, the widespread knowledge of fan sites wasn't as prevelant either, so if you needed help, you had to ask in game. One aspect that wasn't included in the essay, was the role of player moderators. Back in the day, those folks who became player moderators, did so because they felt they had knowledge to impart, or that they could be role models demonstrating a 'right way' to play the game - playing nicely and fairly. I haven't seen a PM being helpfull in a long time. Without that positive influence, the community may well have declined in it's in game friendliness, but that doen't mean the community has declined. It just means that the community as changed how it interacts. The rise in the number and diversity of clans is testament to that.

 

It's perhaps the role of the player moderators that could be a strong arm in the fight against bots, scams and grifters. They could be used to help identify suspicious play, I don't mean shouting 'BOT - REPORTED' every time they walk past the yew patch and no-one is chatting (c'mon, you never watched TV while woodcutting???), but in being able to identify, correctly, any avatars that are playing in a suspicious manner. Yes, it could be interpreted as a kind of 'secret police', but one would hope a force devoid of corruption.

 

As to the return of Wildy and unbalanced trade, it's a populist tactic. It would be possible to reintroduce unbalanced trade without the Wilderness of old, but not vice versa. Personally, I don't see that it would be the Wildy of old. Which will only disapoint all those folks that have come out of retirement and so send them back. The game has moved on, new spells, potions and prayers have been introduced, which will make participating in that aspect of the game much more tactical. It could be a very interesting development within the clan communities.

 

In regard to "Runescape and Legacy..." I think it is important to remind players of old, and inform newwer players of the pitfalls of the reintroduction of Wildy and unbalanced trade, yet I fear that most voters cast their vote and then had a look at the debate. As I previously mentioned, it being a populist tactic, suggests that Jagex didn't want it's players making an informed choice, otherwise, the debate on the forums would have preceeded the vote by a couple of weeks. Calling it a referendum is wrong. A referendum is a period of consultation and debate followed by a vote. It suggests to me that, as mentioned previously in this thread, this is a short term solution to a financial situation Jagex finds itself in. Wouldn't it be terrible, if after all the fanfares and exuberance of the reintroduction of this aspect of the game, actually signals the deathknell of the game?

[Rsvote]

 

Perhaps I am a greater cynic of Jagex than you. I never once thought, Oh, Jagex is finally listening to its players. Ive watched the companys philosophy slowly shift over the last couple of years. Jagex has some history of being disingenuous with its player base. Even this poll has smelled fishy from the start, and a lot of players are waiting to see what the catch to all of this is. To suddenly spring up a poll about the most controversial and most discussed event in the history of the game, and then to feign surprise at the level of response it receives either means they are not as in touch with the community as it may seem, or they are being disingenuous at this very moment.

 

Thank you for the other information I suggested that you provide though. Two very big things stand out in my eyes. First, Jagex is facing tougher competition, and a gradually declining player base. There will always be a natural turnover rate in players quitting, but I believe there is evidence to suggest that Jagex is having a more difficult time attracting new players and keeping them, which means not enough new players are joining the game to replace the older players that eventually leave. Second, Stellar Dawn is on the horizon. Would it be safe to say that the initial success of the new MMO will significantly depend on the interest of the Runescape players? I believe that at least some reasoning behind this referendum has been to generate some cheap buzz.

 

 

I second most of that. However, I think their "feigning surprise" is best understood as: "Okay, we released a completely poor and flawed poll and we don't have the guts to own up and say we mucked up, so let's act stupendously surprised whilst we release a better one without admitting we mucked up". I don't think Jagex have ever really cracked transparency or truly learnt how to apologise/admit they've mucked up, and this is a prime example of it in my opinion.

[Ts_Stormrage]

Wow, an actual intelligent debate... Havent had one of those in a while :D

 

@X3en:

I'm sad to see you did not find my article interesting enough for your entertainment... But I do disagree with you...

While the community indeed seems to be shrinking, I also believe that it is breaking up into smaller, more enclosed communities... People that think alike and/or have the same interests tend to end up hanging out with one another...

 

But I do not agree with you that the community of today is but a "leftover" of some major catastrophic event... The last one that saw a mass exodus out of RuneScape was when the late '07/early '08 updates happened, and the numbers have since then steadily climbed across the board... Not by much, but climbing they did...

[Andregiant]

Wow, an actual intelligent debate... Havent had one of those in a while :D

 

@X3en:

I'm sad to see you did not find my article interesting enough for your entertainment... But I do disagree with you...

While the community indeed seems to be shrinking, I also believe that it is breaking up into smaller, more enclosed communities... People that think alike and/or have the same interests tend to end up hanging out with one another...

 

But I do not agree with you that the community of today is but a "leftover" of some major catastrophic event... The last one that saw a mass exodus out of RuneScape was when the late '07/early '08 updates happened, and the numbers have since then steadily climbed across the board... Not by much, but climbing they did...

[Bladewing]

i agree with the first article. runescape's community has changed. it is filled too many holier-than-though players condescending from their ivory towers about how horrible "aspect X" is for the game.

 

if you played this game for fun you wouldn't worry about what others are doing :thumbup:

[Andregiant]

I have to say, this was one of the most, if not the most, interestating debate since I joined.

 

All replies were polite, articulate, and to the point. Got my attentiion. Read everything.

I'm not a writer, but sure enjoy reading people that know how.

While I do not agree with everything, all of you made your point, about why, and how you saw it.

 

 

We need this every week :)

 

Thank you guys.

 

.....Andre.

[Ts_Stormrage]

i agree with the first article. runescape's community has changed. it is filled too many holier-than-though players condescending from their ivory towers about how horrible "aspect X" is for the game.

 

if you played this game for fun you wouldn't worry about what others are doing :thumbup:

 

If you truly believe that, than you're living in very socially isolated... This is a multiplayer game last I checked, based around player interaction... Some of the updates have indeed killed off parts of the player-to-player interactive bits, and I have every right to say that that is a bad thing for the game as a whole...

 

You might think my views are conflicted when I say "what others do affects me" and "player interaction should be encouraged and not killed off", but do not get me wrong here:

 

 

While I believe that this is, and should remain always, a multiplayer game where what other people do directly or indirectly affects me, I abhor some of the actions of others (such as botters)... I wish for Jagex NOT to remove the player interaction so I would no longer be affected by it, but instead remove those that affect me in a negative way...

 

 

You may think that this line of thought comes from an ivory tower, but in the real world you would not want to stop going outside your house, even if you got mugged or beaten every time you closed the door behind you... It's a debate on what's right and what's not...

[Brett_is_God]

Very insightful article, also fun to read. Not much else to do while i fish anyway :P

[cultjunky]

i agree with the first article. runescape's community has changed. it is filled too many holier-than-though players condescending from their ivory towers about how horrible "aspect X" is for the game.

 

if you played this game for fun you wouldn't worry about what others are doing :thumbup:

 

If you truly believe that, than you're living in very socially isolated... This is a multiplayer game last I checked, based around player interaction... Some of the updates have indeed killed off parts of the player-to-player interactive bits, and I have every right to say that that is a bad thing for the game as a whole...

 

You might think my views are conflicted when I say "what others do affects me" and "player interaction should be encouraged and not killed off", but do not get me wrong here:

 

 

While I believe that this is, and should remain always, a multiplayer game where what other people do directly or indirectly affects me, I abhor some of the actions of others (such as botters)... I wish for Jagex NOT to remove the player interaction so I would no longer be affected by it, but instead remove those that affect me in a negative way...

 

 

You may think that this line of thought comes from an ivory tower, but in the real world you would not want to stop going outside your house, even if you got mugged or beaten every time you closed the door behind you... It's a debate on what's right and what's not...

 

 

To an extent, Bladewing has a point, although not neccessarily put across in a positive way, and perhaps easily taken to heart by someone who is often villified by the forum community. Playing RS for fun is fundamentally what we all do, if botters and merch clans manipulate resource prices, it should be remembered that the XP isn't maninpulated, as the immortal Billie Holiday put it - "they can't take that away from me". Nor can the satifsaction one gets from achieving a personal goal. I'm assuming that Bladewing hasn't been the victim of a spam attack or a ddos attack, as such, many of us that are concerned about the power a corrupt clan has to effect an individuals participation in the game could sound like doomsayers at best, condescension at worse.

 

However, I don't believe there is an element of 'Ivory tower-speak' or condescension within the essay, or within the responses in this thread. It just happens to be a mature discussion that has elicited a mature response. We do have to keep in mind, that there are varying levels of interaction within the RS community. Personally, I'm not in a clan, I've never played Castle Wars, visited a God Dungeon or even played dungeoneering! But I do try to help fellow players and add to discussions on a couple of forums if I feel that I have something to add. That level of interaction is enough for me. Equally, there are varying levels of language command, age, social staus etc, that can effect an individuals perspective of, and level of participation within the game.

 

It's unfortunate that there are elements within the game that do have a negative impact upon the enjoyment of the game. Prior to the removal of Wildy, these almost reached a tipping point where, especially in the F2P game, there was no community because of the negative aspects that were mentioned within the essay. Fingers crossed we've learned from history.

[i_m_darkness]

I'm too lazy to read every post in this thread, so forgive me if I say something repetitive.

 

I have little to no faith in Jagex' capability to catch bots. Or maybe differently, their ability to punish them. A few months back I knew quite a few people botting runecrafting on their main account (I still know them, but I think they stopped it). They weren't worried about getting banned for this or anything, they simply warned eachother to stop after the 2nd warning from Jagex (or something similar). So basically, Jagex caught some of them twice, but the most those people got as a punishment was a week ban, two weeks maybe? Nothing to be bothered about if you're making money like that and gaining runecrafting levels, still considered one of the more difficult skills to get up.

 

This very reason made me vote no on the referendum without needing any more thoughts, and it was the sole one. My reasoning is that bots aren't as widespread anymore because people have to use the botting programs on their main account to have any real use. Remove the trade limit and people will find a way to bot on another account and pass on the wealth in ways that wont arouse too much suspicion. I can see the botting becoming widespread enough again that jagex' won't be able to look into every case individually to find out where the money went to (not surprising with the amount of players). The things we "gain" with the removal of limits seem too insignificant to play any role whatsoever compared to this huge negative side.

 

Yes, pking and gaining everything of the other player might have been more fun, and giving a friend a proper birthday present was always nice. However, the current approach actually works, whereas the other one never managed to prove even that.

 

Why change a winning team?