Jump to content

Tip.It Times - 16th January 2011


Racheya

Recommended Posts

*Throws a bucket of water on all the flames.* Let's just all calm down. You're welcome to express your opinions, but PLEASE DON'T ATTACK EACH OTHER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

RE - Start it off with a bang

 

A misnomer if ever there was.

 

"A few weeks into its tenth year" was the opening statement. It being a little early in the year, I felt it was a little too soon for an adequate analysis of recent updates.

The first reflection regarding the Wildy & Free trade debate was almost a paraphrased account of the previous weeks' tipit times. As such it was pointless and superfluous. This is exemplified by the continuing debate regarding the validity of the vote. Dull and monotonous.

The second reflection regarding the new Red Axe instalment, well thanks for the spoiler. It would appear that the author is not providing a platform for discussing the ongoing storyline, or anything, other than advertising the fact that they have completed the quest.

Fortunately, the third reflection regarding Nex did at least attempt to encourage debate regarding the worth of the rewards. However, as I said befor, it's too soon for any meaningful debate, as the price of the armour will be inflated at the moment, perhaps when it's dropped in a couple of weeks when there's a few more on the market it can be assessed better.

All in all, very disapointing.

 

RE - Curious case of Dungoeneering

 

Having never played Dungoeneering, I was interested to read an article discussing this skill. Initially, my reluctance to play was based on a desire to avoid entering into conversation with a group of younger players. I know this is a very prejudiced attitude towards younger players. As I have never met a player older than me*, that means everyone. Sorry. I will play at some point, probably once I have finished this damned Shattered Heart statue. Perhaps Kamykazee would be kind enough to help me, I estimate that as I'm putting all my penguin points on this skill, I'll be around the level 70 mark. Fingers crossed ;)

All in all, I found this second article to be engaging, but it did reinforce my initial prejudices.

 

*If there are any Tipit Mods out there that can confirm or refute that I'm the oldest 'Scaper on the block, I would be very interested to know.

Cultjunky.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A few weeks into its tenth year" was the opening statement. It being a little early in the year, I felt it was a little too soon for an adequate analysis of recent updates.

That phrase is used to give a frame of reference for the rest of the article. She's talking more about the amount of "drama" that the updates have caused than the updates themselves.

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to Stormrages "poll" (which is about as bad as Jagex's "petition" was): Bladewing hit the nail on the head, and yes your poll probably did tell you what you "wanted" to know because you engineered this result.

 

Sound familiar?

 

Jagex made a rubbish voting system, realised they'd mucked up and replaced it. The second one (the referendum) did not engineer a bias in the result. I actually made my own dissaproval of the "petition" clear in the part of my post you quoted (and in other parts of my post), and I have also composed blog entries about it (feel free to read them).

 

Well - for the sake of argument - how do we truly know that Jagex actually honestly recorded "all" the votes on the second poll? Doesn't it seem just as likely that they already planned on bringing it back, and merely made up a poorly designed "poll" the first time, then covered their tracks and recorded only a small percentage of the "no" vote to skew the results into showing what they wanted?

 

Secondly, if Jagex wanted a real honest vote, why didn't then have each issue voted on separately?

 

In so many ways, this reminds me of the 1995 Quebec Referendum question:

 

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?.

 

Yes [] No [] Don't care []

 

:rolleyes:

nyuseg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to Stormrages "poll" (which is about as bad as Jagex's "petition" was): Bladewing hit the nail on the head, and yes your poll probably did tell you what you "wanted" to know because you engineered this result.

 

Sound familiar?

 

Jagex made a rubbish voting system, realised they'd mucked up and replaced it. The second one (the referendum) did not engineer a bias in the result. I actually made my own dissaproval of the "petition" clear in the part of my post you quoted (and in other parts of my post), and I have also composed blog entries about it (feel free to read them).

 

Well - for the sake of argument - how do we truly know that Jagex actually honestly recorded "all" the votes on the second poll? Doesn't it seem just as likely that they already planned on bringing it back, and merely made up a poorly designed "poll" the first time, then covered their tracks and recorded only a small percentage of the "no" vote to skew the results into showing what they wanted?

 

Yes, they could well have done this and it makes a wonderful conspiracy theory; I myself don't trust Jagex and didn't when they first released the "petition". However, my point that the poll itself didn't engineer a result would still hold true; there was no bias in the actual poll's question/answer.

 

Secondly, if Jagex wanted a real honest vote, why didn't then have each issue voted on separately?

 

They offered a package which players could opt for or against. We was voting for whether this package was desirable, not our individual interests in each part of it. I'm not giving my position on this decision (it's rather long and boring) but there's no "dishonesty" in blocking them together.

 

In so many ways, this reminds me of the 1995 Quebec Referendum question:

 

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?.

 

Yes [] No [] Don't care []

 

:rolleyes:

 

Hehehehehe.

yes.png

 

Blogs on the free trade/wilderness referendum: http://rsvote.wordpress.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A few weeks into its tenth year" was the opening statement. It being a little early in the year, I felt it was a little too soon for an adequate analysis of recent updates.

That phrase is used to give a frame of reference for the rest of the article. She's talking more about the amount of "drama" that the updates have caused than the updates themselves.

 

 

I could take on board the idea that the article was in regard to the drama that the updates had caused, had all the updates caused some drama. The new quest installment and Nex have in no way caused any drama, if anything, these updates have been overshadowed by the drama of the wildy update.

Cultjunky.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A few weeks into its tenth year" was the opening statement. It being a little early in the year, I felt it was a little too soon for an adequate analysis of recent updates.

That phrase is used to give a frame of reference for the rest of the article. She's talking more about the amount of "drama" that the updates have caused than the updates themselves.

 

 

I could take on board the idea that the article was in regard to the drama that the updates had caused, had all the updates caused some drama. The new quest installment and Nex have in no way caused any drama, if anything, these updates have been overshadowed by the drama of the wildy update.

And then I respond by saying "drama" is an ambiguous word. Having the most powerful and expensive armor to date being released has definitely stirred the hypothetical pot and caused some drama. You're right about the new quest, though. That doesn't really have a dramatic impact on Runescape.

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*If there are any Tipit Mods out there that can confirm or refute that I'm the oldest 'Scaper on the block, I would be very interested to know.

Um, if you are talking about the joindate on the Tip.it Forums, then: http://forum.tip.it/index.php?app=members&module=list Just hit advanced filters, and then at the bottom of the page, select sort by joindate in ascending order.

 

ForsakenMage Was apparently the 3rd TIF account created, and he is still active, having posted just before the post I quoted.

 

And if you are talking about Runescape, I know for a fact that Ashley still plays, and she was the 13th account created on RS I believe. (or 9th account, possibly)

 

@Blyaunte

 

You can't have Wilderness without Free Trade, or vice versa. Bringing only one back removes every reason for the removal of the other, rendering it unnecessary and ineffective.

pere_grin.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*If there are any Tipit Mods out there that can confirm or refute that I'm the oldest 'Scaper on the block, I would be very interested to know.

Um, if you are talking about the joindate on the Tip.it Forums, then: http://forum.tip.it/index.php?app=members&module=list Just hit advanced filters, and then at the bottom of the page, select sort by joindate in ascending order.

 

ForsakenMage Was apparently the 3rd TIF account created, and he is still active, having posted just before the post I quoted.

 

And if you are talking about Runescape, I know for a fact that Ashley still plays, and she was the 13th account created on RS I believe. (or 9th account, possibly)

 

 

 

I've got absolutely no interest in length of period playing, being on the forum, etc. That's just the equivalent of buying a car with a long...nevermind. If you check my profile, it gives my age. I'd don't believe that the advanced search options offer the option of searching by age, to be fair, if they do, they shouldn't. But I know giving a birthdate is a requirement of registration. So I'm interested in trying to find a player who was really born before the real me, rather than their characters age.

 

Hope that makes things clearer

Cultjunky.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*If there are any Tipit Mods out there that can confirm or refute that I'm the oldest 'Scaper on the block, I would be very interested to know.

Um, if you are talking about the joindate on the Tip.it Forums, then: http://forum.tip.it/index.php?app=members&module=list Just hit advanced filters, and then at the bottom of the page, select sort by joindate in ascending order.

 

ForsakenMage Was apparently the 3rd TIF account created, and he is still active, having posted just before the post I quoted.

 

And if you are talking about Runescape, I know for a fact that Ashley still plays, and she was the 13th account created on RS I believe. (or 9th account, possibly)

 

 

 

I've got absolutely no interest in length of period playing, being on the forum, etc. That's just the equivalent of buying a car with a long...nevermind. If you check my profile, it gives my age. I'd don't believe that the advanced search options offer the option of searching by age, to be fair, if they do, they shouldn't. But I know giving a birthdate is a requirement of registration. So I'm interested in trying to find a player who was really born before the real me, rather than their characters age.

 

Hope that makes things clearer

 

You're only 41. I'm sure there's plenty.

 

EDIT: I believe my friend made a forum account here a few years ago, and she's 43/44.

yes.png

 

Blogs on the free trade/wilderness referendum: http://rsvote.wordpress.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL... Believe whatever you want to tell yourself... My poll shows that only 4 out of 10 people believe Jagex told us the truth over believing they are either incompetent or lying (or both)...

 

That poll was a little flawed as everyone who voted option C) would also have fallen into category A) or category B) depending on if they felt Jagex lied or told the truth.

I actually voted C) but A) could equally apply to me.

I don't think they lied - but the implementation and the communication surrounding that first interest gauging vote meant it was clearly flawed in more than one way.

Maybe the poll told you what you needed to know, hence I didn't debate it in your actual poll thread, but once you start trying to use it to back up other points it's liable to come under more scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't like either article very much, this week. That being said, though, neither was poor. I felt that the first had some grammar issues that made it distracting. (The second had a few, too, but they were manageable.)

 

The first article was a fairly decent summary, but I felt that points like

Their Latin-based names told of their powers, i.e. smoke, shadow, blood, and ice. Even the new armor names hinted of their power ("Torva" meaning savage, "Pernix" meaning nimble or swift, and "Virtus" meaning strength, courage, excellence, and goodness). These were some of the rare instances players can read something in a different language that isn't a translation of the game itself and is not a game-based language.

had very little value. As someone who has studied Latin for years, I do enjoy coming across it in every-day life, but it doesn't make the game, itself, any different. It's not like the Corporeal (from corpis, corporis, n.) Beast's name made it more appear powerful to the average player =p. The fact that "Nex" (death, murder) was left out in the article surprised me, too. Apart from my grammar rant, (sorry!) I felt that the article gave me little insight past that of the Knowledge Base; it felt more like rephrased, embellished ideas found on the RS homepage rather than original thought. Overall though, it wasn't bad =). (Hey, I read the whole thing, right?)

 

The second article was strictly a summary, to me. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it keeps things very factual and less insightful than I'd like them to be. Although the parts about themes and experience rates were valid, I disagree about Dungeoneering being alone in its "never the same twice" aspect. Slayer is definitely similar, and other skills can be, too, if you train them in certain ways. In response to these paragraphs,

Despite this and the fact that it has been awhile since the skill has been ‘complete’, I still have that feeling I had before we had a clear picture of it. My views on it are still mixed, the same as before all the batches came out. This just doesn’t sound as exciting and thrilling as it was being made out to be back in the Q&A’s from 2009.

Whatever the case may be, as with any skill, Dungeoneering has both supporters and critics. Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder, and perhaps this is the only true part where the skill flunks – in not being the skill that would appeal to all, but I suppose that is just wishful thinking.

I felt that the author should suggest something in order to improve the state of current events. I was looking for that opinion throughout... Some sort of insight as to where things should go from here would have concluded the piece more strongly.

 

Sorry for the critical responses... I did read both articles to the end, so they weren't really "bad"... but I would have liked to have seen a little extra!

Our_Moon.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well the only thing about dungeoneering is after the excitement of a new theme moved on it got progressively worse to find a team

 

its hard to get started on the skill if not started first week...

 

my advice is always have a friend with you in dungeoneering then thiers always someone that knows what they are doing.

StarViv.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2nd Article means a lot to me. I'm an avid fan of Dungeoneering, but I do agree that Dungeoneering begins to become a joke. I also feel the XP rates are bit unfair. I'm one of those players that don't have a set playing time, I'll often put in a 10hr RS day, but then not play for an entire week, or I'll play like 20mins a day, and It would be nice to be able to solo a medium sized dungeon but get decent XP? Also, imo the skill is waaaaaay to fast, just a giant grind for many maxed players, which I felt the whole presence of Dungeoneering was supposed to be the anti-grind feeling. I think its safe to assume that 70% of the people with 120 Dungeoneering have gotten at least 50M+ xp in a single month, half the way to 120. I got 99 Dungeoneering back before occult came out, and I had a lot more fun playing Dungeoneering. Nowadays if you don't complete a Dungeon in under 20 mins, which I think averaging 20mins is an exaggeration, unless you have a permanent team, your considered a noob. I think it would be nice if DG xp never got so fast after the new floors, so the higher level DG community wouldn't see DG as a grind. If DG was maybe 80k/hr it would put a lot of hardcore grinders off, and the would avoid the skill. Also, c1s existed back at 35 prestige but its a very failed concept, where designing those floors almost become a waste of time, although I heard f1 on 60 prestige is 77k, so people just love grinding for some reason. IMO 77k is a great floor compared to the 30-50k/floor back at f35 prestige. But this is my opinion and I'm just very anti-grinding.

Pinata.png
Capes in order: Firemaking - Cooking - Construction - 99 Dungeoneering
- 120 Dungeoneering - Quest - Strength - Prayer - Herblore - Constitution
- Attack - Defence - Ranged - Runecrafting - Magic - Fletching - Mining

- Farming - Smithing - Slayer - Woodcutting - Summoning - Thieving - Hunter

- Fishing - Agility - Crafting - Divination - Max - Completionist

0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0100 0101

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blyaunte

 

You can't have Wilderness without Free Trade, or vice versa. Bringing only one back removes every reason for the removal of the other, rendering it unnecessary and ineffective.

 

How do you reckon that one? :unsure:

nyuseg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blyaunte

 

You can't have Wilderness without Free Trade, or vice versa. Bringing only one back removes every reason for the removal of the other, rendering it unnecessary and ineffective.

 

How do you reckon that one? :unsure:

Because they were both removed for the same reason.

 

Hypothetically, say Jagex put the Wilderness back in in 13 days. But they left the trade system and GE as it is now. Why would this not make any sense?

 

[hide=My answer]

It would not make any sense because they were both removed for the same reason. They removed both the Wilderness and Free Trade to combat RWT.

 

They removed Free Trade so that players could not just hand each other massive sums of cash or items without receiving a form of payment equal to the value of the items being traded. So gold farmers could not walk up to a paying customer and put 10mil cash up, hit accept twice, and walk away, thus leaving the "customer" 10mil richer in game and roughly ~$50.00 poorer in real life.

 

The removed the Wilderness so that a goldfarmer could not carry 10mil + 3gp with him in his inventory, and walk out into the wilderness and let the "customer" kill him and loot his deathpile of exactly 10mil coins and one bones. This would leave the "customer" 10mil richer in game and roughly ~$50.00 poorer in real life.

 

Now, if Jagex reintroduced the Wilderness, they would essentially be saying. "We feel that we can now combat RWT with new detection systems and cool gadgets. Because RWT and botting are no longer hard to deal with issues, we will reinstitute the old Wilderness with all the old rules. All of the reasons we gave you for the removal of the Wilderness have been rendered moot (irrelevant)." All of a sudden, everything mentioned in the paragraph about the Wilderness above becomes possible again.

 

If Jagex were to do this, some players would probably say something like:

 

"Hey! Wait just a second! You said all the old reasons you gave us for the removal of the Wilderness don't matter anymore. Well, you gave us the exact same reasons for the removal of Free Trade. How come we don't get Free Trade back? Do the reasons matter when they are about Free Trade, but don't matter when they are about the Wilderness? If so, that doesn't make any sense!"

 

And they would be right.

 

There would be no reason for Jagex to keep Free Trade out of the game (while bringing back the Wilderness) besides the impulsive "Because we can!"

 

The same principle applies in the other direction as well.

[/hide]

 

Doing something like this would give a much deeper meaning to the phrase "You got Jagex'd" though. :P

pere_grin.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the Dungeoneering article. I've hated that "skill" since it came out. I don't even have mixed feelings. I hate it.

 

If I wanted to get a huge team of people and raid a dungeon I'd go play WoW. Is that what you want Jagex? You want me to go play WoW? The skill either needs to be removed and made into a minigame, or it needs to be more balanced so that people who want to go alone can actually level it up just like the people in huge teams.

evrythngtakn.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I've got absolutely no interest in length of period playing, being on the forum, etc. That's just the equivalent of buying a car with a long...nevermind. If you check my profile, it gives my age. I'd don't believe that the advanced search options offer the option of searching by age, to be fair, if they do, they shouldn't. But I know giving a birthdate is a requirement of registration. So I'm interested in trying to find a player who was really born before the real me, rather than their characters age.

 

Hope that makes things clearer

 

I don't post often, but I do try to read the Tip.it Times regularly along with the associated forum topic. I was born in 1957, and my husband (who also reads the Times) was born in 1952.

 

Being this old, I have lived through many corporate dramas. This flourish (bringing back the Wilderness) on the part of Jagex reminds me of things other companies have done just before they try to access capital markets. Could be going public, could be owners want to sell a portion of the company, could be they want a loan for a project. Thoughts, anyone?

/\ ~Mara Planter

/ \ o

/ \ |=

/ \ ^ * * * *

| | / \ \ | /

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it did cross my mind that at some point there could be no new content added to RS. If for no other reason that it might discourage new members because of the huge amount of catch up required, if your shiney new character of level 3, comes face to face with a hoard of level 123's, it's bound to be daunting. Recently I've been wondering if there might be a RS - TNG coming to us. A similar game perhaps, that is only accesible if you have a valid quest cape, and a minimum number of skill capes. Perhaps it could be accessible via a portal near the Making History quest start, with it's own quests, perhaps preqels to current quests, extended skill tables and items etc to take a player upto a greater level. So yes, I do think that Jagex are gearing up for a new project

Cultjunky.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blyaunte

 

You can't have Wilderness without Free Trade, or vice versa. Bringing only one back removes every reason for the removal of the other, rendering it unnecessary and ineffective.

 

How do you reckon that one? :unsure:

Because they were both removed for the same reason.

 

Hypothetically, say Jagex put the Wilderness back in in 13 days. But they left the trade system and GE as it is now. Why would this not make any sense?

 

[hide=My answer]

It would not make any sense because they were both removed for the same reason. They removed both the Wilderness and Free Trade to combat RWT.

 

They removed Free Trade so that players could not just hand each other massive sums of cash or items without receiving a form of payment equal to the value of the items being traded. So gold farmers could not walk up to a paying customer and put 10mil cash up, hit accept twice, and walk away, thus leaving the "customer" 10mil richer in game and roughly ~$50.00 poorer in real life.

 

The removed the Wilderness so that a goldfarmer could not carry 10mil + 3gp with him in his inventory, and walk out into the wilderness and let the "customer" kill him and loot his deathpile of exactly 10mil coins and one bones. This would leave the "customer" 10mil richer in game and roughly ~$50.00 poorer in real life.

 

Now, if Jagex reintroduced the Wilderness, they would essentially be saying. "We feel that we can now combat RWT with new detection systems and cool gadgets. Because RWT and botting are no longer hard to deal with issues, we will reinstitute the old Wilderness with all the old rules. All of the reasons we gave you for the removal of the Wilderness have been rendered moot (irrelevant)." All of a sudden, everything mentioned in the paragraph about the Wilderness above becomes possible again.

 

If Jagex were to do this, some players would probably say something like:

 

"Hey! Wait just a second! You said all the old reasons you gave us for the removal of the Wilderness don't matter anymore. Well, you gave us the exact same reasons for the removal of Free Trade. How come we don't get Free Trade back? Do the reasons matter when they are about Free Trade, but don't matter when they are about the Wilderness? If so, that doesn't make any sense!"

 

And they would be right.

 

There would be no reason for Jagex to keep Free Trade out of the game (while bringing back the Wilderness) besides the impulsive "Because we can!"

 

The same principle applies in the other direction as well.

[/hide]

 

Doing something like this would give a much deeper meaning to the phrase "You got Jagex'd" though. :P

 

Your logic is circular and therefore flawed. Sure, both were removed for purportedly "the same reason", but they are not necessarily inter-dependent.

 

Unless you can provide an actual valid reason that demonstrates how they are completely and utterly inter-dependent, then there is no reason whatsoever why both options had to be included in the same poll.

:P

nyuseg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blyaunte

 

You can't have Wilderness without Free Trade, or vice versa. Bringing only one back removes every reason for the removal of the other, rendering it unnecessary and ineffective.

 

How do you reckon that one? :unsure:

Because they were both removed for the same reason.

 

Hypothetically, say Jagex put the Wilderness back in in 13 days. But they left the trade system and GE as it is now. Why would this not make any sense?

 

[hide=My answer]

It would not make any sense because they were both removed for the same reason. They removed both the Wilderness and Free Trade to combat RWT.

 

They removed Free Trade so that players could not just hand each other massive sums of cash or items without receiving a form of payment equal to the value of the items being traded. So gold farmers could not walk up to a paying customer and put 10mil cash up, hit accept twice, and walk away, thus leaving the "customer" 10mil richer in game and roughly ~$50.00 poorer in real life.

 

The removed the Wilderness so that a goldfarmer could not carry 10mil + 3gp with him in his inventory, and walk out into the wilderness and let the "customer" kill him and loot his deathpile of exactly 10mil coins and one bones. This would leave the "customer" 10mil richer in game and roughly ~$50.00 poorer in real life.

 

Now, if Jagex reintroduced the Wilderness, they would essentially be saying. "We feel that we can now combat RWT with new detection systems and cool gadgets. Because RWT and botting are no longer hard to deal with issues, we will reinstitute the old Wilderness with all the old rules. All of the reasons we gave you for the removal of the Wilderness have been rendered moot (irrelevant)." All of a sudden, everything mentioned in the paragraph about the Wilderness above becomes possible again.

 

If Jagex were to do this, some players would probably say something like:

 

"Hey! Wait just a second! You said all the old reasons you gave us for the removal of the Wilderness don't matter anymore. Well, you gave us the exact same reasons for the removal of Free Trade. How come we don't get Free Trade back? Do the reasons matter when they are about Free Trade, but don't matter when they are about the Wilderness? If so, that doesn't make any sense!"

 

And they would be right.

 

There would be no reason for Jagex to keep Free Trade out of the game (while bringing back the Wilderness) besides the impulsive "Because we can!"

 

The same principle applies in the other direction as well.

[/hide]

 

Doing something like this would give a much deeper meaning to the phrase "You got Jagex'd" though. :P

 

Your logic is circular and therefore flawed. Sure, both were removed for purportedly "the same reason", but they are not necessarily inter-dependent.

 

Unless you can provide an actual valid reason that demonstrates how they are completely and utterly inter-dependent, then there is no reason whatsoever why both options had to be included in the same poll.

:P

 

Firstly, it's worth pointing out that the vote was for the basic principle of how Runescape would progress; they didn't have to offer it, yet they did. Motives aside, this is a fundamentally significant act for the game. This vote, which yields a (predictable, maybe) clear result towards one side effectively solidifies the bulk of the community, as a clear majority has opted for this significant change as oppose to it being randomly added without consultation.

 

There are plenty of practical reasons why (I.E. Old Wilderness makes free trading entirely possible, people would do this and Runescape would yield a considerably higher scam rate) but I think that the principle reason why they did not is that if they'd have split the potential changes, the majority (who were willing to accept things they didn't like or didn't care about for the things they did) would definitely have been smaller on those issues which did yield a majority ("probably" most of them, but not all), and this would have caused so many more community splinters/clashes which would be terrible for the game as it stands; they knew this, they weren't prepared to risk it.

 

I'm almost inclined to write a "what if" blog over this. Jagex "splitting the vote" would have been potentially catastrophic and broken on so many levels.

yes.png

 

Blogs on the free trade/wilderness referendum: http://rsvote.wordpress.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blyaunte

 

You can't have Wilderness without Free Trade, or vice versa. Bringing only one back removes every reason for the removal of the other, rendering it unnecessary and ineffective.

 

How do you reckon that one? :unsure:

Because they were both removed for the same reason.

 

Hypothetically, say Jagex put the Wilderness back in in 13 days. But they left the trade system and GE as it is now. Why would this not make any sense?

 

[hide=My answer]

It would not make any sense because they were both removed for the same reason. They removed both the Wilderness and Free Trade to combat RWT.

 

They removed Free Trade so that players could not just hand each other massive sums of cash or items without receiving a form of payment equal to the value of the items being traded. So gold farmers could not walk up to a paying customer and put 10mil cash up, hit accept twice, and walk away, thus leaving the "customer" 10mil richer in game and roughly ~$50.00 poorer in real life.

 

The removed the Wilderness so that a goldfarmer could not carry 10mil + 3gp with him in his inventory, and walk out into the wilderness and let the "customer" kill him and loot his deathpile of exactly 10mil coins and one bones. This would leave the "customer" 10mil richer in game and roughly ~$50.00 poorer in real life.

 

Now, if Jagex reintroduced the Wilderness, they would essentially be saying. "We feel that we can now combat RWT with new detection systems and cool gadgets. Because RWT and botting are no longer hard to deal with issues, we will reinstitute the old Wilderness with all the old rules. All of the reasons we gave you for the removal of the Wilderness have been rendered moot (irrelevant)." All of a sudden, everything mentioned in the paragraph about the Wilderness above becomes possible again.

 

If Jagex were to do this, some players would probably say something like:

 

"Hey! Wait just a second! You said all the old reasons you gave us for the removal of the Wilderness don't matter anymore. Well, you gave us the exact same reasons for the removal of Free Trade. How come we don't get Free Trade back? Do the reasons matter when they are about Free Trade, but don't matter when they are about the Wilderness? If so, that doesn't make any sense!"

 

And they would be right.

 

There would be no reason for Jagex to keep Free Trade out of the game (while bringing back the Wilderness) besides the impulsive "Because we can!"

 

The same principle applies in the other direction as well.

[/hide]

 

Doing something like this would give a much deeper meaning to the phrase "You got Jagex'd" though. :P

 

Your logic is circular and therefore flawed. Sure, both were removed for purportedly "the same reason", but they are not necessarily inter-dependent.

 

Unless you can provide an actual valid reason that demonstrates how they are completely and utterly inter-dependent, then there is no reason whatsoever why both options had to be included in the same poll.

:P

You're argument is flawed because you make irrational and untrue claims. My post contains no circular reasoning.

 

Your implication that they were not removed for the same reasons without backing up that statement is also a mistake. I wonder if you were actually around at that time? They were removed for exactly the same reasons. Anyone paying attention during this time can affirm this.

 

Also, you are the one commiting the logical fallacy by asking me to provide proof. You wish to change the status quo, but you have yet to actually provide a reason why it should be changed.

 

You also commit the Appeal to Probability Fallacy by continuing to claim that Jagex rigged the vote.

 

You also commit the Argument from Fallacy.

 

In addition, your posts seem to be themed with the Is-Ought Problem.

 

Making the claim that what I say is untrue does not refute it. Your belief that I am wrong does not equate to the falsehood of my argument. Continually claiming I am wrong without backing your claims up with logic and proof merely renders your posts unsubstantive and repetitive. (e.g. continually saying "But you're wrong." is not a valid proof of your position)

 

However, because your posts are themed with the Is-Ought Problem, I believe that there is a very good chance you are merely a troll.

pere_grin.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're argument is flawed because you make irrational and untrue claims. My post contains no circular reasoning.

 

Your implication that they were not removed for the same reasons without backing up that statement is also a mistake. I wonder if you were actually around at that time? They were removed for exactly the same reasons. Anyone paying attention during this time can affirm this.

 

Also, you are the one commiting the logical fallacy by asking me to provide proof. You wish to change the status quo, but you have yet to actually provide a reason why it should be changed.

 

You also commit the Appeal to Probability Fallacy by continuing to claim that Jagex rigged the vote.

 

You also commit the Argument from Fallacy.

 

In addition, your posts seem to be themed with the Is-Ought Problem.

 

Making the claim that what I say is untrue does not refute it. Your belief that I am wrong does not equate to the falsehood of my argument. Continually claiming I am wrong without backing your claims up with logic and proof merely renders your posts unsubstantive and repetitive. (e.g. continually saying "But you're wrong." is not a valid proof of your position)

 

However, because your posts are themed with the Is-Ought Problem, I believe that there is a very good chance you are merely a troll.

 

Just for the record, I considered pointing out the fallaciousness of his arguments too.

yes.png

 

Blogs on the free trade/wilderness referendum: http://rsvote.wordpress.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're argument is flawed because you make irrational and untrue claims. My post contains no circular reasoning.

 

Your implication that they were not removed for the same reasons without backing up that statement is also a mistake. I wonder if you were actually around at that time? They were removed for exactly the same reasons. Anyone paying attention during this time can affirm this.

 

Also, you are the one commiting the logical fallacy by asking me to provide proof. You wish to change the status quo, but you have yet to actually provide a reason why it should be changed.

 

You also commit the Appeal to Probability Fallacy by continuing to claim that Jagex rigged the vote.

 

You also commit the Argument from Fallacy.

 

In addition, your posts seem to be themed with the Is-Ought Problem.

 

Making the claim that what I say is untrue does not refute it. Your belief that I am wrong does not equate to the falsehood of my argument. Continually claiming I am wrong without backing your claims up with logic and proof merely renders your posts unsubstantive and repetitive. (e.g. continually saying "But you're wrong." is not a valid proof of your position)

 

However, because your posts are themed with the Is-Ought Problem, I believe that there is a very good chance you are merely a troll.

 

Just for the record, I considered pointing out the fallaciousness of his arguments too.

lol. I only did it because he tried to use his "knowledge" of fallacies to escape from responding to me.

pere_grin.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're argument is flawed because you make irrational and untrue claims. My post contains no circular reasoning.

 

Your implication that they were not removed for the same reasons without backing up that statement is also a mistake. I wonder if you were actually around at that time? They were removed for exactly the same reasons. Anyone paying attention during this time can affirm this.

 

Also, you are the one commiting the logical fallacy by asking me to provide proof. You wish to change the status quo, but you have yet to actually provide a reason why it should be changed.

 

You also commit the Appeal to Probability Fallacy by continuing to claim that Jagex rigged the vote.

 

You also commit the Argument from Fallacy.

 

In addition, your posts seem to be themed with the Is-Ought Problem.

 

Making the claim that what I say is untrue does not refute it. Your belief that I am wrong does not equate to the falsehood of my argument. Continually claiming I am wrong without backing your claims up with logic and proof merely renders your posts unsubstantive and repetitive. (e.g. continually saying "But you're wrong." is not a valid proof of your position)

 

However, because your posts are themed with the Is-Ought Problem, I believe that there is a very good chance you are merely a troll.

 

Just for the record, I considered pointing out the fallaciousness of his arguments too.

lol. I only did it because he tried to use his "knowledge" of fallacies to escape from responding to me.

 

Hehehe, I got that impression.

 

You'll observe that if an argument "for" (or an explanation of "why") is presented, it's ignored. Which is a pretty consistant problem amongst all of those who're disputing the validity of the referendum (there's been another reasonably prominent example in this thread, who went so far as to call someone as "idiot" because they didn't also agree with his stance). I expect a negative product of this referendum (or - to unambigiously make sure these posts are "on topic" - starting the year with a bang) might well be arrogance-ammo for those who feel it's appropriate to self righteously assault those who dissagree with their stance but not provide any argument to substantiate said stance. Oh such fun.

yes.png

 

Blogs on the free trade/wilderness referendum: http://rsvote.wordpress.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.