Jagex' new rares? - 3A vs discontinued - PRICE UPDATE 7/2

[ultrablue]

Rares will rise in price nonetheless, but sooner or later they will collaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's math.

[quitthegame]

Rares will rise in price nonetheless, but sooner or later they will collaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's math.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simplifying a complicated situation into a false dilemma, and then without foundation stating that first one leg must happen, and then that the other leg will happen at a later date, is not math. It's much more like the opposite of math.

[spatulus13]

depends on how you view the term "rare", if by rare you mean a very hard to get item then yes, if you mean rare as in a discontinued item then no.

[Duke_Freedom]

Opinions aren't of any relevance at all? You are aware that you have uttered a fairly comical oxymoron there right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was saying that opinions on what is nice, good, beautiful and "a masterpiece of a genius" are not very releveant. They are a matter of taste and everyone's taste is different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could embark on a lengthy defense of artistic merit, but I'm going to leave that one alone, just imagine I made it ;).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And just pretend that I broke it apart, because I would disagree with it. ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will say, that your declarations that famous paintings are valueless to you are missing the point. You could find someone for any given thing who finds no value in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind of like how you miss the point of rares. Some people do see the value in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I don't think there is anyone who believes that there is great inherent value in the simplistic graphics of rares(if they do, they probably don't understand what inherent value means), while there are many very rich people who believe that great paintings have incredibly high inherent value.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as I've just argued, whether an object has "inherent value" is a matter of taste. And yes there are people who value rares. People like how they look.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, since when do "simplistic graphics" not fall into the category art anymore?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Party hats are valued for being valuable

Famous paintings too.

This is an egregious misquotation. My actual sentence was "Party hats are valued for being valuable, nothing more.", which wouldn't have worked for your seemingly witty reply. This isn't the kind of response I expected from you...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hm I did misquote, I accidentally truncated it as I see now, so sorry. Still, if phats are only valued for being valuable then I'm keeping the stance that art is only valued for being valuable as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what the problem is with people who argue that paintings have inherent value / "deeper meanings"? They require that you use your imagination to "see" the inherent value / "deeper meaning".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, what this really means is that the inherent value / "deeper meaning" is not in the painting, but it is created by your imagination and then projected on the painting. The right conclusion would be that the painting did not have any inherent value in the first place and that your imagination can tell you everything you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, I think the painting I linked to earlier in this post shows very well that paintings too are only valued because they are so valuable. Any 6 year old kid can draw that painting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True, but McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Google all provide valuable services as a basis for their worth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the examples I gave, the services wouldn't be valuable anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not trying to prove anything here, I'm pointing out holes in other people's proofs, so why accuse me of not proving anything?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And all I was really showing with it is that you can make a story of "if everyone tomorrow decides to ... then ... will be worthless" of everything, thus it doesn't point out anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing that jumps out at me, is that people saying "xxxx can only go up in the long term" is exactly what people have historically said during price runups leading up to huge bubble collapses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Historically there were usually no conditions attached to it though. I consciously made it bold that there is a requirement that the market conditions don't change. I can argue in simple economics with a simplistic example why rares can only go up on the long-term under consistent market conditions if wanted though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also want to make very clear that I consciously use the word long-term. There may be price drops at times. However, eventually the expectation is that the price will always end up higher - providing that the market conditions don't change. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, I would characterise that faith as the 4th condition that influences the price of rares in the long-term, it's the condition you omitted from your description, and it's the reason we disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are right that faith is a very important reason for the price levels of rares as well. I sometimes mention it, but usually not, because faith is not a market condition. Even without any faith that rares would go up (aka no speculators) I can still argue that rares would be going up in price on the long-term.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The major issue I have with both you and Blaek in that thread is your dependence on the unstated assumption, "conditions must change measurably before any major change can happen in the market". This simply isn't true, randomness in the market is a very powerful factor, it could take nothing more than a small price adjustment to finally break investor confidence in rares and begin a massive panic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I stated earlier already - temporary price drops may happen. I am not making any statements on that. However, on the long-term the prices will eventually reach new heights if there are no changes in the market conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it is possible that they could continue in their current state for 5 more years, or they could crash tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aha. You do realize that over the past 3 years rares have been growing in price at an average rate of 12% per month?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is, rares have been a great investement throughout the years and as you even point out yourself, they may still remain a very good investement for a long time. Scepticy who consciously don't invest in them at all because of risks miss out big time on the investement potential.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, as I do recognize that there are risks with rares, of varying types too like a duplication bug for example, I usually do tell people to keep part of their money in cash or materials if they can't afford to lose it all if things go wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a gut feeling that in the latter case, the rares market would collapse, since people would then see the "end of the future" and want to convert to more usable goods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well that's one of the scenario's I oftenly describe. Rising prices of raw materials. IMO the rares market doesn't necessarily needs to crash as a result of it though. Also, if we look at RSC, rares are still worth much more then they were worth before RuneScape was split into RSC and RS2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The consideration of expected lifespan for RS2 has bearing on another disingenuous argument I see here a lot--that only discontinued items can truly be rare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nah, the word 'rare' was just wrongly reserved for the discontinued items back in the days and most people still refer to them as 'rares'. Other items can be "rare" too, when the word "rare" has the meaning of uncommon. It's quite ironic actually... Back in the days 'rares' weren't even "rare". :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yet another interesting point, is that for the merchants whose only goal in RS is to accumulate rares/wealth, there may be no compelling reason to diversify as a means of guarding against a rares collapse. At that point, their only reason to play RS would be gone, so the loss of all their gains wouldn't really matter. A very unique situation, to be sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While rares are currently the most important aspect of the game for merchants, it is wrong to say that rares are the only reason why merchants play rs. Merchants like rares because they are a hedge against inflation. And indeed, quite a few merchants therefore like to express their richness in terms of rares. However, the main goal of merchants is still to become as rich as possible. If they expect rares to crash, they will cash out before the crash. The game for merchants wouldn't end if there were no rares, the game would change.

[quitthegame]

 

 

 

I was saying that opinions on what is nice, good and beautiful are not very releveant. They are a matter of taste and everyone's taste is different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is simply not true. People's tastes are more similar than they are different. If you are determined to define people by their differences, then yes, everyone is slightly different. But if you were truly honest about this, then you would realize that it is shared tastes that define cultural groups, it is shared opinions on what is good and beautiful that define artistic movements, and it is shared opinions that drive the movements of nations and history. Even your opinion that matters of aesthetics are unimportant because no one's aesthetic judgement is perfectly identical, is ITSELF a preexisting AESTHETIC judgement that you have seen and aligned yourself with. Again, your own arguments contradict themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will say, that your declarations that famous paintings are valueless to you are missing the point. You could find someone for any given thing who finds no value in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind of like how you miss the point of rares. Some people do see the value in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people think that party hats, divorced from their economic function arising from their rarity, are worth the attention they are given? Whom? I'll answer that question. No one. I don't miss the point of rares, I am distinguishing between inherent and contextual value, no doubt if you'd wasted as much time as I did in philosophy courses then you'd already be familiar with the vocabulary and we could have skipped this whole paragraph.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as I've just argued, whether an object has "inherent value" is a matter of taste. And yes there are people who value rares. People like how they look.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a matter of taste... just like everything in society is a matter of taste. People who denigrate the role of social values in the operation of societies are just as nutty as people who denigrate the role of mathematics in science. They are in danger of doing very strange things, like comparing the artistic value placed on masterpieces with that of party hats... coming soon to a mall near you, prints of blue phats, books containing artistic criticism of all discontinued items. ~_~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hm I did misquote, I accidentally truncated it as I see now, so sorry. Still, I'm keeping the stance that art is only valued for being valuable as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what the problem is with people who argue that paintings have inherent value / "deeper meanings"? They require that you use your imagination to "see" the inherent value / "deeper meaning".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, what this really means is that the inherent value / "deeper meaning" is not in the painting, but it is created by your imagination and then projected on the painting. The right conclusion would be that the painting did not have any inherent value in the first place and that your imagination can tell you everything you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your argument is phrased so generally as to easily apply to any facet of human existence, and if such is done results in absurdity: When you talk to your wife, you need to use your imagination to transform the words you hear into a coherent meaning. 'The right conclusion would be that conversation with your wife has no inherent value in the first place, and that your imagination can tell you everything you want. ' I.e., through an incomplete process of reductionism, you've managed to slide everything that matters in life into a side compartment of metaphysical solipsism, where you pretend it doesn't really exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, the rest of our discussion is not very exciting. We both agree that a temporary massive drop in prices may occur. We both agree that rares are a good method of investing. Your statement about increasing value with fixed market conditions is fairly obviously of limited expiration date, over a long time period it's basically unfeasible to claim that there will be no changes in market conditions, especially in as vague a state as you leave that phrase. I'm going to make very clear exactly what my original post was arguing against: people who state that since rares have historically gone up fairly steadily, with a few exceptional decreasing periods, they are guaranteed to perform similarly in the future. You are not one of these people by the way, if we hadn't started talking about the function of aesthetics in society we'd barely disagree. My point is mainly that if rares were to drop in value by 80-90%, and stay down for a period measured in years not months, than that behavior would be similar to that seen following similar bubbles in real estate and art.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So much of your response to me was based on misguided solipsistic philosophies, and misunderstandings of my very carefully phrased analysis, that we'd do better to start over than to continue. Still, I thank you for the discussion, and hope that we both continue to enjoy our observation of this economic microcosm.

[xvillexvalox]

Frankly, I think RPGs should have more rares like this, they make the game more fun and the items actually give you an advantage unlike discontinued,

[Ts_Stormrage]

Wow...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Duke and Flamma(ble?) are goign at it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both have vaklueable points, especially when comparing it to a painting of a now dead artist (Mondrian is a dutchy too)...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However when bringing in the factor of these 3rd age items, and its popularity being right now being equal to, if not higher then phats, I can only guess that the actual rares will take a small dive, where the 3rd age items will for the time being climb rapidly...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interested to see what more you guys can compare it with, but please try to keep it closer to home (stay on topic and talk about phats vs 3rd age)...

[Duke_Freedom]

I mentioned personal taste was irrelevant while keeping in mind that we were talking in the context of economics, please don't take my words way out of context like you did...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people think that party hats, divorced from their economic function arising from their rarity, are worth the attention they are given? Whom? I'll answer that question. No one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Collectors like them for collecting purposes. Plenty of people like how they look. You are just arguing while knowing better here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't miss the point of rares, I am distinguishing between inherent and contextual value, no doubt if you'd wasted as much time as I did in philosophy courses then you'd already be familiar with the vocabulary and we could have skipped this whole paragraph.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philosophy can't be studied. Luckily you agree with that by saying you wasted your time on those courses. Hehe. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only inherent value paintings really have is how they look and their 'contextual' value that they are unique. Whether you think a painting looks good or not is a matter of taste, which means that the utility (as economic concept) of the item differs from person to person. Some people may not like how the painting looks at all and for those people the painting does not have any inherent value nor utility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you talk to your wife, you need to use your imagination to transform the words you hear into a coherent meaning. 'The right conclusion would be that conversation with your wife has no inherent value in the first place, and that your imagination can tell you everything you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't use your imagination to create the coherent meaning, you use your memory for that. We are taught some words have a specific meaning and that some words combined in a sentence have another meaning. There is no need to make use of your imagination here and there's a huge difference between using your memory and using your imagination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis: Both a famous artist and I make a painting. We call it 'black dot' and all we do is - duh - paint a black dot. Analysis shows that both paintings are 100% exactly identical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I go on and sell the painting, while mentioning that I made it myself. I manage to get a whole $0.01 cent for it. The famous artist does the same and also mentions that he made the painting himself. His painting suddenly sells for $1000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now the only difference between my painting and his painting is the person who made it. I'm fairly sure this is exactly what falls in the category "contextual value" and thus there is no extra inherent value in the painting of the famous artist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Sorry ts stormrage for the slight off-topicness here. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However when bringing in the factor of these 3rd age items, and its popularity being right now being equal to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well yeah, 3rd age armour falls into the category substitutes-for-rares so there's certainly a negative effect for rares, but I just still think it's too early for me to make any final statement on that yet.

[Ts_Stormrage]

No probs...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just surprised to see how, what I thought was a simple comparisson between new and old "rares", turned into a philisophical debate abiout how we interpret the value of things which have no use to us.

[SAGE]

If anyone is going to bother arguing with Duke about the Runescape economy, tell me next time so I can get a chair, bag of popcorn and just watch you get schooled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still doing clues for third age items :$ Not going to go blow my bank on them this early in their arrival.

[quitthegame]

If anyone is going to bother arguing with Duke about the Runescape economy, tell me next time so I can get a chair, bag of popcorn and just watch you get schooled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately Duke only wants to talk about paintings, although I'd be happy to discuss the economy with him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mentioned personal taste was irrelevant while keeping in mind that we were talking in the context of economics, please don't take my words way out of context like you did...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The entire comparison of paintings to party hats was a side note in my initial post, if you want to talk about taking things way out of context. However, I don't understand your point here. The context of economics, when you're talking about how and why people value things, is pretty much the entire universe. So that's a pretty amusing accusation, all in all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Collectors like them for collecting purposes. Plenty of people like how they look. You are just arguing while knowing better here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Collectors like them for collecting purposes, true. Plenty of people like how they look, true. I know better, true. So what? That doesn't address my point at all. If you had said, plenty of people would pay 50 dollars for a coffee table book containing prints of phat graphics, that WOULD address my point. But actually addressing my point doesn't seem to be your agenda here. Not that this was more than a small side point anyhow...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only inherent value paintings really have is how they look and their 'contextual' value that they are unique. Whether you think a painting looks good or not is a matter of taste, which means that the utility (as economic concept) of the item differs from person to person. Some people may not like how the painting looks at all and for those people the painting does not have any inherent value nor utility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, this doesn't address my points at all. I am very limited in my replies to you, if you continually insist upon saying obviously true things that don't address my points, I can take it back to basic rhetoric... In logic you learn that to invalidate the statement "All A are B" all you need is to produce some B that is not A. You proudly produce a statement of the form "some B are not A", then rest on your laurels content that you have proved me wrong. But my statement wasn't of the form "All A are B", was it? I didn't even say "Most A are B". I actually said "...there are many very rich people who believe that great paintings have incredibly high inherent value. " i.e., "some A are B" This is an obviously true statement. You basically seem to think that I'm saying that inherent value means the item radiates magical value power, when I'm clearly saying that inherent value means that a person values that item just for existing, not for some goal that it allows him to accomplish. If you would just check the logical pattern of your argument, and see that it just doesn't apply at all, perhaps that would help you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you talk to your wife, you need to use your imagination to transform the words you hear into a coherent meaning. 'The right conclusion would be that conversation with your wife has no inherent value in the first place, and that your imagination can tell you everything you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't use your imagination to create the coherent meaning, you use your memory for that. We are taught some words have a specific meaning and that some words combined in a sentence have another meaning. There is no need to make use of your imagination here and there's a huge difference between using your memory and using your imagination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't need human consciousness to understand human speech, you only need memory? So computers can understand human speech just like a human? I guess you're not familiar with the Turing Test, you've just claimed that a microwave is Artificial Intelligence because it has memory. Check wikipedia on the turing test, perhaps you'll understand my point then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis: Both a famous artist and I make a painting. We call it 'black dot' and all we do is - duh - paint a black dot. Analysis shows that both paintings are 100% exactly identical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I go on and sell the painting, while mentioning that I made it myself. I manage to get a whole $0.01 cent for it. The famous artist does the same and also mentions that he made the painting himself. His painting suddenly sells for $1000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now the only difference between my painting and his painting is the person who made it. I'm fairly sure this is exactly what falls in the category "contextual value" and thus there is no extra inherent value in the painting of the famous artist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what? I never claimed that items with inherent value wouldn't have contextual value too. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to name an item that possessed inherent value without contextual value. I can't believe you spent your entire post attempting to disprove the small segment of my post that I specifically disclaimed as not part of my main point, and still mostly just said obvious truths that didn't contradict what I'd written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if you're accustomed to rolling over people who disagree with your position on rares with your barrage of references to economics or what, but I studied mathematics in university so it's going to take more than a vast number of obviously true statements lacking any logical connection to my points to impress or confuse me. Let's declare a truce on the paintings alright? I agree with everything you said(except the part about intelligent microwaves), although I don't believe what you said contradicts anything I said. If you actually want to respond to any of my main points on the economy, please do so.

[aj926]

He just stated that we're buying into bubbles, which we are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was his main point, and he is right on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why this has caused as much fuss as it has.

[Duke_Freedom]

This is my last post talking about the paintings, because the debate about that seems to be going nowhere and because it is going too off-topic anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The entire comparison of paintings to party hats was a side note in my initial post,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common, 1/3rd of your intial post was about the comparison of paintings to party hats, that's not what I call a side note. Another 1/3rd was about how party hats would be worthless if everyone suddenly decided they aren't worth pursuating, which I pointed out that it can be said about anything. And another 1/3rd was about how you disagree that rares will always go up on the long-term, which we talked about in the rest of our posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The context of economics, when you're talking about how and why people value things, is pretty much the entire universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In economics, people value things because they have utility to them and people seek to maximize their utility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Collectors like them for collecting purposes, true. Plenty of people like how they look, true. I know better, true. So what? That doesn't address my point at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I don't think there is anyone who believes that there is great inherent value in the simplistic graphics of rares(if they do, they probably don't understand what inherent value means)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You initially denied party hats had inherent value for some people and now you're saying that wasn't your point and that they do have inherent value for some people. To put it in the simple logics, you initially said "No A are B" and now you say "Some A are B".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't need human consciousness to understand human speech, you only need memory?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you would use your imagination to understand what something means that implies that it wouldn't matter if someone told you "Can you please get me a cup of coffee?" or "igfsfieijodaijs" since your imagination would apparently be able to interpret it well in both cases. This obviously is not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't need human consciousness to understand human speech, you only need memory? So computers can understand human speech just like a human?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the techniques are developped far enough then yes I believe they can. Currently the techniques are still far from being good enough for that though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I pointed out with the hypothetical example is that the only inherent value the painting has is how it looks and that this also holds for famous paintings. The rest of the value in famous paintings is contextual value. Since rares only have inherent value equal to how they look and the rest is contextual value too, I keep my stance that the comparison of rares with famous paintings holds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going to make very clear exactly what my original post was arguing against: people who state that since rares have historically gone up fairly steadily, with a few exceptional decreasing periods, they are guaranteed to perform similarly in the future. You are not one of these people by the way,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would love to talk further about economics, but as you already said yourself we don't really seem to disagree (much). I don't state that they are guaranteed to go up in the future just because they historically did so, I state that they are guaranteed to go up in the future under the requirement that the market conditions remain the same, which is what caused them to go up historically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, the requirement is vague. I could strengthen it to say that rares are bound to go up on the long-term as long as the population number is not shrinking and the inflation is larger than 0. However in that case there may be quite long "temporary" price drops and long-term might be going to be equal to an unreasonable amount of years then, thus strengthening it also makes it less useful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, you might like to take a look at this graph, which shows the value of rares indexed at 11-3-2005 versus the exponential trend function of my own total gp estimates in the economy also indexed on the same date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is mainly that if rares were to drop in value by 80-90%, and stay down for a period measured in years not months, than that behavior would be similar to that seen following similar bubbles in real estate and art.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80-90% is too much. I don't believe that they could remain at that price for years even if there were such a crash, unless the game would change big time from how it works now.

[quitthegame]

In economics, people value things because they have utility to them and people seek to maximize their utility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uh, no. In economics, people's valuation of things is modeled by a free variable called utility. Your definition is both circular and meaningless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Collectors like them for collecting purposes, true. Plenty of people like how they look, true. I know better, true. So what? That doesn't address my point at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I don't think there is anyone who believes that there is great inherent value in the simplistic graphics of rares(if they do, they probably don't understand what inherent value means)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You initially denied party hats had inherent value for some people and now you're saying that wasn't your point and that they do have inherent value for some people. To put it in the simple logics, you initially said "No A are B" and now you say "Some A are B".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, you are completely and totally wrong yet again. Liking how they look = an incredibly small inherent value. I said some people put "great inherent value" on paintings. So to put it in simple logic, I said A = 1, B = 10000000, not that this is more than a side point anyhow!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't need human consciousness to understand human speech, you only need memory?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you would use your imagination to understand what something means that implies that it wouldn't matter if someone told you "Can you please get me a cup of coffee?" or "igfsfieijodaijs" since your imagination would apparently be able to interpret it well in both cases. This obviously is not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This only argues against your own point, it is basically the example I could have given to further illustrate my argument but omitted due to being too obvious. In it, you are admitting your solipsism, and you are denying your own ability to distinguish between party hats and art because your imagination interprets it well in both cases, whatever that means. So you are arguing about something, where you don't even believe it really exists, and even if you did you couldn't tell it apart... good game

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, if you read up on cognitive science, you'll find a lot of theories about the functional workings of imagination. It has been hypothesized that imagination is at its core just memory, with incremental changes along one or a few variables. Imagine memory as a many dimensional vector space, take two points in memory reasonably close to each other, that defines a new vector. Extend that vector into its containing line, that line represents imagination ranging through the realm of possibility. The power of imagination is that this process can be repeated recursively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I pointed out with the hypothetical example is that the only inherent value the painting has is how it looks and that this also holds for famous paintings. The rest of the value in famous paintings is contextual value. Since rares only have inherent value equal to how they look and the rest is contextual value too, I keep my stance that the comparison of rares with famous paintings holds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's your point? Visual Art's only inherent value is how it looks... good job figuring that one out, but it doesn't say anything that a kindergartner doesn't already know. Why don't you write a paper about this and submit it to the New York Times or something, I'm sure they'd be fascinated to know that the only thing that distinguishes visual art pieces is that they look different. I'm beginning to suspect that you aren't being serious, at all. Yes, they both have inherent value, and contextual value, and those are indeed demarcated like you say. But their contextual value differs in complexity, and their inherent value is vastly different, so the comparison doesn't hold. Again, even if the comparison DID hold, the historical behavior of the art markets would still contradict the thesis that rares can't have a longterm downturn in price, a point which I made and you continually neglect to rebut.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is mainly that if rares were to drop in value by 80-90%, and stay down for a period measured in years not months, than that behavior would be similar to that seen following similar bubbles in real estate and art.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80-90% is too much. I don't believe that they could remain at that price for years even if there were such a crash, unless the game would change big time from how it works now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I base my opinion on my knowledge of similar crashes in value in the real world's past, I don't know what you base your opinion on because you refuse to specify it. Remember that I'm only saying the situation is possible, you are saying it is impossible, so the burden of proof is many times heavier on you, which makes your refusal to support your argument all the more confusing.

[quitthegame]

Wow...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Duke and Flamma(ble?) are goign at it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both have vaklueable points, especially when comparing it to a painting of a now dead artist (Mondrian is a dutchy too)...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However when bringing in the factor of these 3rd age items, and its popularity being right now being equal to, if not higher then phats, I can only guess that the actual rares will take a small dive, where the 3rd age items will for the time being climb rapidly...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interested to see what more you guys can compare it with, but please try to keep it closer to home (stay on topic and talk about phats vs 3rd age)...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have noticed through the years, that my writing style has somehow incited many arguments with native germanic-language speakers, without any such intent on my part. Of course, English is technically a germanic language, and the language that English is historically closest to is Frisian, which is principally spoken in parts of the netherlands, if I recall correctly. Coincidentally, there is a large Frisian community north of San Francisco, where I live, which is how I happen to know about it. But, in practice, modern english has taken basically its entire vocabulary and conversational style(extremely indirect, in polar opposition to German) from French and Latin, so perhaps that explains it. So, 'es tut mir leid'-- if this conversation were in Duke's native tongue I'm sure it would be no contest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The analysis I would like to see between 3rd age and discontinued, is on what time frame will 3rd age actually be more common than discontinued? If it's 5 years from now...who plans to still be playing RS in 5 years? Realistically, that's too long to plan for, in terms of RS3, changes to RS2, possibly quitting. Has such an analysis been done already? Still, the contextual value of party hats' history is unlikely to change, while 3rd age will likely be bettered by new gear at some point.

[Wachtwoord]

If anyone is going to bother arguing with Duke about the Runescape economy, tell me next time so I can get a chair, bag of popcorn and just watch you get schooled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still doing clues for third age items :$ Not going to go blow my bank on them this early in their arrival.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was thinking exactly the same :lol: .

 

 

 

But I love it by the way. Even though I'm just a newb in economics, I like these discussions very much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Off Topic: Duke, I really wonder what you're sig is gonna be.

[r2-pleasent]

Well, I'll throw some of my thoughts in here. I think, first of all, that we cannot simply assume Rares will continue to rise just because they have in the past. Jagex changes this game every week, and it is impossible to judge exactly what effect an update is going to have on the market. One of the most important additions to the game in respect to Rare prices this year was actually Skill Capes, which no one originally pegged as a risk to Discontinued prices. However, with this update, it became obvious right away that people wanted these capes, and were now much more interested in spending their money to get the required levels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, the problem with Rares wasn't inflation itself, but the fact that there was a huge amount of money in the game, and nothing to really spend it on. Other than Discontinued items, the next most expensive item up until very recently was a Dragon Chain, which was hovering around the price of 30M for awhile. The next most expensive items? Barrows items. This meant that a player could buy just about anything with 50M, without even having to sell his other items. So what happens to players with over 50M? They need to spend this money on something, and at the time, the only worthwhile items to invest in were Rares. However, this has recently changed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nowadays, there are many alternatives for players with a large bank account. First of all, it has now become much more appealing to have 99 skills, for the same reason it is appealing to have Rares in many senses. Previously, there was really no way at all to show a player you had 99 Woodcutting, Herblore, Agility, you name it. The only skill that was displayable to other players was your Combat, which is a mix of several other skills. With Skill Capes, players can now actually show off their accomplishments, and to many people, this is MUCH more appealing than just showing off how wealthy you are. So, not only are these players spending their money on items like Logs, Ores, Fish, and other raw supplies, they are also contributing to many money sinks in the game. Money-sinks aren't necessarily GP-destroying, but also the consumption of usable items. By burning a log through firemaking, you are in effect transfering money into skill points. This is a non-reversible action, and therefore you are removing wealth from the game permanently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, this may seem to be quite a minor action, and the increase in players burning logs trying to raise their Firemaking would likely go un-noticed if it were the only skill affected by this change. However, other skills, like Construction, one which already is a massive money-sink, suddenly becomes even more attractive with the Skill Cape in mind. You see, many players will level a skill until they hit a certain achievement, usually around level 85-90, which corresponds to the highest level activity you can unlock by leveling this skill, which means they stop at around 5 Million Experience. But now, this same player that would have stopped at 5 Mil Exp in Construction, is now going for 99, which is more than double his original amount. Think about how many more supplies that will burn, and how much extra gold they will need to spend leveling up this skill, which would have otherwise gone towards items like Rares.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And finally, as this post describes, there are new Ultra-Rare items in the game. For now they only include Third Age items, which can cost over 200M per piece, but it is very likely that Jagex will continue to introduce more Ultra-Rares, which have such a ridiculously low drop rate, that their supply is kept very low. These items are the first since early Dragon Chains, which offer a player not only a good investment, but an item they can actually use to benefit their characters in the game. The effects are already being witnessed, as Rares are no longer the only option for a player with 100M+ to spend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, it is nearly impossible to predict the future for Rares, as Jagex is continuously putting out new updates. However, it is my belief that with current market conditions, Discontinued Items will continue to fall in price. It must be noted that most people who buy Rares only purchase them because they are expecting a return on their investment. With current conditions, players are actually losing money by holding these Rares, and the slow decrease in value of Discontinued Items has spread itself out over several months now. As Flame said, once players begin to see this as a trend, the value of Rares could decrease greatly overnight.

[Duke_Freedom]

 

In economics, people value things because they have utility to them and people seek to maximize their utility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uh, no. In economics, people's valuation of things is modeled by a free variable called utility. Your definition is both circular and meaningless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To value also has the definition "to price", which I apparently should have used instead to avoid even more misunderstanding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the rest I think it's a waste of time to continue discussing about philosophy and rares=paintings, because you are just interpretting things I say and restating them differently and we'll continue to disagree anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to summarize, the main points I disagree with are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*about phats*: Liking how they look = an incredibly small inherent value. I said some people put "great inherent value" on paintings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think what you define "great inherent value" with paintings is actually contextual value as well, just like it is with party hats. And:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and their inherent value is vastly different

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe the only (significant) inherent value of both a party hat and a painting is the way they look and is thus not different at all, which I tried to show with the hypothetical example I gave. Also, in both cases the inherent value of the items does not justify their price.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also believe that their contextual value is very similiar, although not exactly the same, as famous paintings are both unique and have a specific (famous) person who created them, something which is not completely true for rares.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80-90% is too much. I don't believe that they could remain at that price for years even if there were such a crash, unless the game would change big time from how it works now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I base my opinion on my knowledge of similar crashes in value in the real world's past, I don't know what you base your opinion on because you refuse to specify it. Remember that I'm only saying the situation is possible, you are saying it is impossible, so the burden of proof is many times heavier on you, which makes your refusal to support your argument all the more confusing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be careful with using extremes and don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. Also, I think your comparison of a possible rares bubble to real world bubbles is weak at most, but let's not start (another) a real world bubbles=rares bubble debate. Let's stop the analogies totally and tell me exactly why are rares a bubble in your opinion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We talked about the issue you have with "xxxx can only go up in the long term" which I mentioned can actually be proven under certain market conditions. We also talked about faith being responsible for a large portion of the price (which I agreed with and which is ofcourse a risk - on short or mid-long term though) and perhaps that is what you consider the bubble in rares?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another interesting question I have is whether you will continue to perceive rares as a bubble even after the prices hypothetically crashed by 80-90%?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: One thing I have to admit, which is what r2 talks about mostly here above, is that the market conditions in rs have severely changed over the past half year already due to strong interference of Jagex. All of the changes were indeed for the worse of the future of rares and the real (long term) effect of the changes on rares is yet to be seen. Not only that, the player population growth, expressed as rate, is lower than it used to be as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rares have also been pretty much stagnant for a half year by now, which is, to say the least, unusual for them. A price correction may happen, because the faith and investement effect in rares is wearing off. Still, that would probably end up in a panic, a quick [bleep]e downwards followed by a stabilization period and from then on slowly rising prices again. I do not see any good reason why they would stay down, assuming such a price drop happens in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bottom line remains, like r2 also states, that Jagex has an extremely large influence on the long-term future of rares and therefore nearly impossible to make any useful long term predictions for rares.

[quitthegame]

 

 

 

Just to summarize, the main points I disagree with are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*about phats*: Liking how they look = an incredibly small inherent value. I said some people put "great inherent value" on paintings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think what you define "great inherent value" with paintings is actually contextual value as well, just like it is with party hats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if I say inherent value, i'm intentionally only referring to inherent value, although the contextual value has a component that is closely linked to the inherent value, so I see why you don't want to separate them. So we are really close to agreement on that point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and their inherent value is vastly different

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe the only (significant) inherent value of both a party hat and a painting is the way they look and is thus not different at all, which I tried to show with the hypothetical example I gave. Also, in both cases the inherent value of the items does not justify their price.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But your example doesn't work, which I tried to explain earlier. I do agree in both cases there is significant contextual value, so that inherent value alone is not sufficient to explain the price. Part of my point also though, is that the part of the contextual value of the art closely linked to the inherent value is somewhat durable in a crash situation. Anyways, back to your first sentence here. Just because the inherent value of each is solely determined by the way they look, does nothing to prove that the inherent value is the same. Here's an example of my own. The only value of this post is the language property of the words I use. The only inherent value of Shakespeare's "hamlet" is the language properties of the words he uses. People assign more inherent value to Hamlet than they do to my posts--Just like people (on average) assign more inherent value to great art than they do to the art of party hats. An example of the noninherent value of hamlet would be using it as the basis of an essay to get into college.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be careful with using extremes and don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. Also, I think your comparison of a possible rares bubble to real world bubbles is weak at most, but let's not start (another) a real world bubbles=rares bubble debate. Let's stop the analogies totally and tell me exactly why are rares a bubble in your opinion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said before, I'm not certain that rares are a bubble. I was just remarking on the irony, that the very words that some people are using in this thread, are the words that make it seem like a bubble. The number of investors in rares, and the type of language I see them use, makes me think that there's a good chance that the current situation is a bubble, but I wouldn't go so far as to say probably a bubble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, if it is a bubble, than what to make of the graphs showing rares are linked to total money supply increase? Well, I have two possible hypotheses. One hypothesis is that money sinks are underrepresented in that graph, as they are so scattered across the different vendors(and players quitting/getting banned, perhaps even harder to measure) that it's hard to count them accurately. The other hypothesis is that pehaps inflation in RS is best measured like it is in real life, with a composite average of prices. since materials have stayed fairly constant in price, the inflation rate would then be much lower than the growth in rare prices. this would mean that materials have been steadily getting cheaper in inflation-adjusted money, and rares more expensive. there could always be some other unforeseen reason as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another interesting question I have is whether you will continue to perceive rares as a bubble even after the prices hypothetically crashed by 80-90%?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I wouldn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: One thing I have to admit, which is what r2 talks about mostly here above, is that the market conditions in rs have severely changed over the past half year already due to strong interference of Jagex. All of the changes were indeed for the worse of the future of rares and the real (long term) effect of the changes on rares is yet to be seen. Not only that, the player population growth, expressed as rate, is lower than it used to be as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very true, and I would predict more such changes are in the works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rares have also been pretty much stagnant for a half year by now, which is, to say the least, unusual for them. A price correction may happen, because the faith and investement effect in rares is wearing off. Still, that would probably end up in a panic, a quick [bleep]e downwards followed by a stabilization period and from then on slowly rising prices again. I do not see any good reason why they would stay down, assuming such a price drop happens in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's interesting here, is that everyone sees and understands why bubbles occur, but why do some take 2 months to run their course, while others take 10 years? the length of time we're talking about here for RS is so much longer than I would intuitively expect for an online environment, that it makes me think it's not a bubble. Even if it's not a bubble though, the relative deflation of materials prices vis-a-vis rares prices could precipitate a panic given further anti-rares action by Jagex, at which point some people would certainly claim that a bubble had been proven...

[Duke_Freedom]

We don't seem to disagree much at all, judging from the example you gave. I never said, or at least didn't mean to say, that the inherent values (expressed as an amount, a number) are the same... My point was more that the type of which the values are derived is in fact the same and that in both cases the inherent value is far from being good enough to explain the price of the items alone and that the contextual reasons why the items are priced so high are very comparable as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus, the idea is that the concept of famous paintings and rares is (roughly) the same and thus that the concept of both is comparable. Looking at your last post, I'm currently unsure at what point you really disagree with this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One hypothesis is that money sinks are underrepresented in that graph, as they are so scattered across the different vendors(and players quitting/getting banned, perhaps even harder to measure) that it's hard to count them accurately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not looking to argue the estimates here, especially as my last estimates are already 7 months old now again, but you could read how they were calculated here if you want to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other hypothesis is that pehaps inflation in RS is best measured like it is in real life, with a composite average of prices. since materials have stayed fairly constant in price, the inflation rate would then be much lower than the growth in rare prices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that materials haven't changed in price (except for occasional reactions on important game updates and even those were minimal) over the 4 years that I have been around in this game. This would say that there is no inflation at all, which just can't be correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, you could argue that the given graph does not adjust the money supply increase for the population growth.

 

 

 

Population growth alone could not totally 'absorb' inflation as the population growth is roughly 7% per month, where my estimates put the money supply growth somewhere at 18% per month though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this would mean that materials have been steadily getting cheaper in inflation-adjusted money, and rares more expensive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I strongly believe that materials have indeed steadily been getting cheaper when adjusted for inflation, which is one of the main reasons that I believe that it is very likely that they'll rise sooner or later too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another interesting question I have is whether you will continue to perceive rares as a bubble even after the prices hypothetically crashed by 80-90%?

No, I wouldn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, the problem is that when there is no bubble in them anymore, there is no reason to not buy them again. Faith will return sooner or later and therefore prices will start rising sooner or later again too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, this sounds like a kind of circular reasoning, but there is some truth in it. One of the reasons that I consider a 80-90% drop far too much too. If that happened, clever people who sold before or at the beginning of the crash could buy back 5 to 10 times as much rares as they had initially. And you can count on them to buy back when they think that rock-bottom has been reached.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ironic part about the sideways fluctuation of rares over the past half year is that there are two ways to explain it and that it's extremely difficult to decide what is really the reason, while both reasons are totally the opposite of each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One way to explain the sideways fluctuation is by saying that there is indeed some sort of bubble and that therefore the prices refuse to go any higher and that the six month stagnation period is a (strong) indication for this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, another way of looking at it is that rares were indeed somewhat overpriced 6 months ago and that, as a result, rares didn't go up any further. One might say that, because inflation has certainly continued throughout those 6 months, rares actually dropped in price adjusted for inflation and that therefore there is no bubble in the prices of rares left anymore and thus no reason to not buy them now as they are likely to go up soon again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And one last way of looking at it all is by saying that there wasn't any price bubble in the prices of rares initially at all, but that the recent significant updates made by Jagex changed the game to such an extent that there is in fact a bubble in their prices right now. Funny part is that Jagex would in that case be responsible for creating the bubble in the rares prices in the first place.

[quitthegame]

 

 

 

I'm not looking to argue the estimates here, especially as my last estimates are already 7 months old now again, but you could read how they were calculated here if you want to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea I read that before and they seemed a little low, but it's not worth discussing really, as we've done quite enough nitpicking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that materials haven't changed in price (except for occasional reactions on important game updates and even those were minimal) over the 4 years that I have been around in this game. This would say that there is no inflation at all, which just can't be correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My theory as to the static nature of materials prices, is that the best way to make money through materials production is nat runes. The best way to auto money has usually been yews. Both of those are capped by high alch values. Therefore, they can't rise. Many other methods are also capped by high alch, but are slower. Sharks are easier to do while semi-afking than nat. runes, so they are capped to a ratio of nat rune money making capability. Farming for UI herbs, same story as sharks. I think that this is a very powerful anti-inflationary mechanism, anything fun to do that makes the same or more money as nat running gets so crowded that the profit drops very quickly. There's actually some nice negative feedback there, if inflation gets out of hand people will start training magic with faster and more expensive methods than high alch, which will put the brakes on inflation. Contrast this with the complete lack of inflation controls among the rich merchants.

 

 

 

..it makes it seem almost comical that the same currency is used for both commodities and rares imo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, the problem is that when there is no bubble in them anymore, there is no reason to not buy them again. Faith will return sooner or later and therefore prices will start rising sooner or later again too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That makes sense. But, the fact that it makes sense, even to a skeptic like me, is what makes me believe that the prices could get so high that an 80-90% drop is possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, this sounds like a kind of circular reasoning, but there is some truth in it. One of the reasons that I consider a 80-90% drop far too much too. If that happened, clever people who sold before or at the beginning of the crash could buy back 5 to 10 times as much rares as they had initially. And you can count on them to buy back when they think that rock-bottom has been reached.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is indeed quite circular, but it seems inescapably so. That crash situation is exactly what happens in the real world, but thinking about that inflation limiting mechanism earlier makes me wonder if that's what keeps RS from experiencing the boom-bust cycle, it's too easy to switch modes of production.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, what is the disadvantage of a quickly moving decentralized spot market, that is too fast and spread out to be cyclic? Exploitability by cartels. You pay the price somewhere lol.

[Ts_Stormrage]

Have either of you heard of Vender commodities (atleast I think its called Vender)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those describe certain things that are only popular to buy, because they are expensive, and infact decrease in popularity when they decrease in price. ertain handmade cars or ancient wines would fall under this I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you two think such a term relates to RuneScape items? I think the perfect example is Phats, but thats just me...

[Scizorz]

You say that one in a thousand odds. I'd say about 3k clues are done a day(probably more, just a guess)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 new 3rd age a day, 0 new partyhats

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3rd age will catch up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's simply not true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Party Hats enter the market everyday, like santas. That's why santas sometimes drop, and sometimes rise. It does not matter how many phats are left in the game at all, it matters how many phats are available at the market.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course 3rd age will catch up, but if Jagex did some other updates they could've made these items the new most expensive items in game.

[Duke_Freedom]

My theory as to the static nature of materials prices, is that the best way to make money through materials production is nat runes. The best way to auto money has usually been yews. Both of those are capped by high alch values. Therefore, they can't rise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While the high alch values of items certainly make the prices of items and the game mechanics regarding economics intransparent, it is not true that the prices on materials are capped by them. People already high alch facing a loss, just like they have been smithing steel bars at a loss for 4 years already too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The high alch values do slow down the speed at which raw materials would grow in price though. It is explained the best if we introduce something like item price adjusted for high alch values.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's take the easiest example which are steel bars. We know steel plates alch for 1200gp and that steel plates are sold for roughly ~1000gp on the market. What this means is that you are pretty much "guaranteed" to get a static 1000gp back for every 5 steel bars you smith into a steel plate, which translates to 200gp per bar. Now steel bars go for ~600gp each on the market. The price of steel bars adjusted for high alch values is thus ~400gp, which is what people pay for the exp they gain from smithing the steel bar, which is roughly equilivant to ~11gp / smithing exp. The point is that if the prices of steel bars would rise with 33%, thus 600gp -> 800gp, this would translate into a rise of 50% for the "real" cost of smithing a steel bar 400gp -> 600gp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As steel plates sell for ~1000gp on the market and strung yew long bows sell for ~570gp on the market it is also easy to see that the "real" price of natures (~320 on the market) adjusted for high alch values is equal to 320 - 200 = ~120gp. However this also means that a 50% in the market price of natures 320 -> 480gp results in more than a doubling in the cost of high alching 120 -> 280gp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still, the high alch values only slow down the speed at which materials can grow and it does not prevent them from growing in price totally. Since material prices have been pretty much constant throughout the years I can only conclude that they didn't experience any inflation / didn't react on the massive money supply increase at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's actually some nice negative feedback there, if inflation gets out of hand people will start training magic with faster and more expensive methods than high alch, which will put the brakes on inflation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that if people go train magic with other ways then high alching because high alching gets too expensive, those other materials would need to rise in price - that hasn't happened either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exploitability by cartels. You pay the price somewhere lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the other reasons I am against a large price drop unless it's really 'necessary' as well. The normal players (read: non merchants) are generally better off with a rares market that goes sideways with it's prices for a year then they are with a market that crashes 80% during the first half year and then rises back to it's old prices in the other half year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only ones who really profit from the latter scenario are usually the (good) merchants. The ones paying the price for it are mostly the normal players. That is exactly what I observed during the 3 month long price drop at the start of rs2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have either of you heard of Vender commodities (atleast I think its called Vender)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm fairly sure you mean Veblen goods. No goods in runescape are complete Veblen goods though, but rares do thank a certain part of their popularity to being expensive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, the investement potential of rares is more important than their popularity due to their expensive price, so the Veblen effect of rares is minimal.

[jemathonical]

I am loving this.