forums.rs

Forums

Repeal the G.E. Tax Please!

Quick find code: 74-75-416-66273172

of 14
Ruby_Red0
Jun Member 2022

Ruby_Red0

Posts: 188 Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
I never actually tried myself, but according to the wiki, players can build and operate 2 of the improved alch machines.

That seems like a simple and obvious way to slow the gold flow. Limit it to only 1.

I'm guessing the players with 2 machines are alching way more per machine than those with only 1. Like 24//7 non-stop.

Compromise. I like it. Jagex would do well to be perceived as capable of compromising with its entire playerbase, and not just a portion of it.
New(ish) Player
:
This is YOUR world, and I'm just a squirrel tryin' to get a nut.
;)
RS3: The game where RWTers are more important than Real Live Players

26-Jan-2023 13:16:25

A  Cole
Nov Member 2003

A  Cole

Posts: 14,682 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Ruby.

You are the one making claims that the GE tax has made items raise in price, yet every example you make shows no evidence that the GE tax is causing that increase in price. If Double Surge was 30m a year ago, and 85m 6 months ago, but the GE tax only came in this month, how on earth has the GE tax caused that almost 200% increase?

If you think there is a less discriminatory method of removing GP from the game, I'd love to hear it.


Mel & Ruby.

I am not claiming that bots will come back if alchemy is nerfed.

I am merely saying that this may be one of the factors that Jagex has considered when working out the best method of removing GP. We, the public, simply do not know what other factors were considered, but we should not be blind to the fact that there are other factors and we can't just take the update at face value.


Mel.

I agree, gold generation sources would have been the fairest thing to look at. However, Jagex explicitly stated in the Dev Blog that this wasn't a viable solution. I don't know why this wasn't viable, but I have given the example of the potential of bots re-emerging. I may be completely off the mark with that guess, but at least I'm aware that GP generation isn't the only factor in this - and this is my entire point.
We don't have all the information
. It may just be that it would take too many small updates, when the GE tax is just one.

Taking 1% off the seller and adding 1% onto the buyer will make no difference whatsoever. The difference is still 2%, and the buyer is still paying 2% more than the seller will receive. All it will do is make it seem fairer, but it really isn't. It is completely identical.

Regarding the Ironmen information, you do have a point. It was not mentioned on the Dev Blog whether IM information was included. However, GP from Ironmen can enter general circulation as they are able to buy bonds from other players. After all, there are not many other uses Ironmen need GP for.


~A~

27-Jan-2023 10:15:46

Mel 624
Dec Member 2021

Mel 624

Posts: 744 Steel Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
My point is that they should explain why it's not viable if they want players to trust them on that. The lack of adequate explanation in addition to the lack of polling and other feedback methods is part of why it was so poorly received. How are players supposed to trust their judgement when they aren't properly discussing the situation with the level of detail that's warranted?

We can't trust the stats because of the ironman issue, we can't trust the claim that PvM isn't as much of a contributor to gp generation as presented because the alch stats don't factor in source of alch items and we can't trust that other options weren't viable because they're not supporting their claims.

Nerfing alchemy value: they said they'd need to reduce values by 50% to meet the goal. While this explains not using it as the sole solution that doesn't mean a smaller reduction isn't viable as a partial one alongside other things that collectively meet the goal when used together. The viability issue seems mostly on player reaction, so how much of a reduction players would've been ok with if it meant avoiding or reducing the tax could've been polled.

Nerfing alchemy machines: this is listed as able to partially meet the goal. The entry doesn't actually explain what kind of nerf they're talking about besides 'making the machine more expensive', which doesn't sound like the nerf suggestions we talked about in this thread. So not only is it dismissed without properly elaborating on the nerfing options but their sole stated reason for it is that the machines aren't the problem and stuff would just get alched in other ways anyway, which I took issue with and refuted already. This part in particular is in dire need of revisiting and proper discussion as it appears to have been needlessly thrown out without proper consideration.

I also took issue with the structure of the list measuring viability by solving the issue alone without really considering composite solutions. How to block a forum user

Death And Taxes: An Analysis

27-Jan-2023 21:14:13

john-punkguy
Apr Member 2005

john-punkguy

Posts: 1,604 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
here's a bit of current/recent perspective on dying:

I recently died with about 600 million worth of gear on.

It cost me 18k to get everything back from death. Yes, only 18k.

This is way too lopsided, the entire player base pays for basically zero penalties for dying. If this doesn't shine a light on a terrible idea I'm not sure what will.

It's essentially free death week always and forever. Not cool Jagex.
This is The Modern Rome Burning. Stand up. Fight back.

03-Feb-2023 12:14:54

Bertel62
Aug Member 2023

Bertel62

Posts: 1,017 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
john-punkguy said :
here's a bit of current/recent perspective on dying:

I recently died with about 600 million worth of gear on.

It cost me 18k to get everything back from death. Yes, only 18k.

This is way too lopsided, the entire player base pays for basically zero penalties for dying. If this doesn't shine a light on a terrible idea I'm not sure what will.

It's essentially free death week always and forever. Not cool Jagex.
But think about how much more fun it is to play a game when you don't risk losing 600M when fighting a monster.

I have hardly ever fought any bosses in this game, for the simple reason that it has always been insanely expensive to die. Now I will actually begin doing that, having fun fighting bosses, and not lose half a year's grind worth of gear when it goes wrong.

Tell me this: If you had risked all 600M in your fight, would you then have gone in there in the first place? Would you ever have played that part of the game?

03-Feb-2023 14:00:16 - Last edited on 03-Feb-2023 14:06:16 by Bertel62

Mel 624
Dec Member 2021

Mel 624

Posts: 744 Steel Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Not losing 600M when wearing 600M is one thing but 18K for 600M reclaim is a bit ridiculous. They didn't have to drop the costs that much. I mean really, not even 100K for that value? This isn't really helping non PvMers' feelings about the tax.

I remember the days when players didn't even have gravestones to protect their gear. Even after they were introduced, your sole means of reclaiming items was to physically return to the place you died before they despawned or got picked up by other players. If you were lucky, other players might even help you get your stuff back. Even having the option to sidestep that issue to reclaim items you'd never get back under that system was pretty cool, cost be damned.

I always saw stuff like bossing as the type of thing you weren't meant to grind for hours upon hours to the point where you'd be risking death often enough to even complain about reclaim costs. You only take in what you're willing to risk and then go do other things in between. I don't really get how anyone could stand to kill bosses over and over for hours every day. It's just not enjoyable to me no matter how little risk is involved. How to block a forum user

Death And Taxes: An Analysis

03-Feb-2023 21:07:29

Dilbert2001
Jun Member 2006

Dilbert2001

Posts: 30,176 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
john-punkguy said :
here's a bit of current/recent perspective on dying:

I recently died with about 600 million worth of gear on.

It cost me 18k to get everything back from death. Yes, only 18k.

This is way too lopsided, the entire player base pays for basically zero penalties for dying. If this doesn't shine a light on a terrible idea I'm not sure what will.

It's essentially free death week always and forever. Not cool Jagex.

When you die, you don't just lose some money buying back your gear, you also lose consumables, gear repair fee, aura/scrishaw usages, divine charges among many other cost. Don't forget the loss of time, which is a big factor as it means a lot of money. You also loss killstreaks and such too.

03-Feb-2023 21:18:35

john-punkguy
Apr Member 2005

john-punkguy

Posts: 1,604 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Falbals: It was nearly 100% risk when I started playing and definitely you were careful while playing. Less risk is appealing to newer players but I'd argue it shouldn't be at the expense of everyone else.

Take the risk, and earn the reward.

Instead, we are all paying to absorb nearly all risk, it's an idea that rewards failure and penalizes hard work.
This is The Modern Rome Burning. Stand up. Fight back.

05-Feb-2023 01:09:19

Quick find code: 74-75-416-66273172 Back to Top