Recently returned, Can ironman be removed?

[Uim elon]

I see your point. But yet the sole tradeable currency to the "single player" mode of the game is donator credits? Kinda defeats the purpose as well hey..

I don't see your point with this one. Even single player games need to be monetized somehow.

I personally can't think of any cons to allowing the xfer to occur but I can think of some pros

Pros: said player who never really played their main account is over their ironman, but dead end in the progress and kinda burnt. They have this gp on their iron but not allowed to xfer it so they ultimately quit instead of continuing to play on a main account with a small portion of the wealth acquired from the ironman.

I personally can't think of any pro's to allowing the xfer to occur but I can think of some cons.

Cons:

• Dumps more wealth into the economy (one of the good things about irons is that they're not contributing to the massive wealth inflation of the eco)
• Someone who played ironman and now wants to play a regular account gets to take a big shortcut (would be better for the game if they had to start again from scratch, instead of using their iron wealth to skip over a bunch of playtime on their new regular account)
• Someone who played ironman, "quit" and xfered their wealth (usually to stake it or do a giveaway) will almost certainly quit permanently, whereas they might've returned after a break if they still had their entire iron bank
• Having the option discourages irons from using their wealth to support the game financially (like how irons were complaining that bank slots are "way too expensive for them" while they're routinely offloading hundreds of bills or even trills to add to their main's wealth stack)

Pro's:

For the game? None.
For the player? Sure, you get to add more wealth to your main's cash pile, obviously that's a pro for you.


Points 2 and 3 about players who get bored with ironman are the big ones. I honestly believe this sort of cashing in progress / moving it from one thing to another is inherently bad for the game. Especially on an RSPS, where the acquisition of wealth is the main form of progress.

Let's say you've been playing the shit out of CoD Black Ops 4 until you got bored with it. Then Black Ops Cold War comes out. You could say: surely it's a good thing if I could delete everything I've obtained on BO4 and have it added to BOCW, right? Cause that gives me extra incentive to play BOCW which I might not do if I had to start over.

Is it good for BO4? Nope, you will never touch that thing again after having nuked your account.
Is it good for BOCW? Nope, because BOCW actually wants you to play it and progress again, not have you insta-unlock all the good stuff so you can reach the endgame without having to play much. And you sure as hell won't spend any money on it because you don't need to, after having transferred over all your riches from the old game.

I know these games aren't the best comparison but you get the idea. It's usually a good thing that our progress can't be transferred, so that we have to play and progress again on another game(mode). Jagex seems to be realizing this too, just look at what they're doing with leagues. In fact ironman itself is also a perfect example of that strategy: here's a gamemode where you have to start over from scratch, and you can't fast-forward your way through by transferring wealth from another account. Making people actually spend time playing the game is what's good for the game.

I think your inference is just a paradox arguement.

Because it can be used for any scenario and end the same regardless of the route taken.

Scenario 1: Player spends 3k hours playing Ironman, they are tired of the game mode, but I don’t want to start from scratch on a normal account. So they just quit.

Scenario 2: Player spends 3k hours playing Ironman, they get tired of the game mode, so they transfer all of the wealth from their Ironman to a normal account. They stake it all and they quit.

Scenario 3: Player spends 3k hours playing Ironman, they get tired of the game mode, so they transfer all the wealth from their Ironman to a normal account. They continue to play the normal account, and they never log into the Ironman account again.

Scenario 4: Player spends 3k hours playing Ironman, they are tired of the game mode, so they transfer all the wealth from their Ironman to a normal account. They get BANNED for the transfer. The player then quits the server.

There are 100 different routes a player can take before ultimately quitting the server, but giving them a chance to experience a different side of the server, without starting from absolute scratch has the possibility to keep them around longer it would seem.

[Rapsey]

I think your inference is just a paradox arguement.

Because it can be used for any scenario and end the same regardless of the route taken.

Just because there's multiple possible scenarios doesn't make it a paradox, nor does it make it pointless to consider those scenarios. It's also a question of how likely each scenario is. Maybe only 5% of players ends up staying longer because of the wealth xfer and 95% ends up playing less than they otherwise would have because of it.

Scenario 4: Player spends 3k hours playing Ironman, they are tired of the game mode, so they transfer all the wealth from their Ironman to a normal account. They get BANNED for the transfer. The player then quits the server.

I am not advocating that anyone should get banned for doing this. Punishments should be a last resort, i.e. in this case it should be made impossible rather than punished. But if it is punished then removing the wealth should be enough.

There are 100 different routes a player can take before ultimately quitting the server, but giving them a chance to experience a different side of the server, without starting from absolute scratch has the possibility to keep them around longer it would seem.

The possibility? Yeah sure, just like it has the possibility to do the opposite. If me speculating that it has a negative impact is a "paradox argument" then you speculating that it has a positive impact is exactly the same thing. If you're going to play the card that we really can't know how it will affect people staying then you're really contradicting yourself by saying the exact opposite in conclusion.

There is at least plenty of evidence for my case that starting over makes people stick around longer. Take ironman mode itself for example. There are plenty of veterans who were already burned out with playing their regular account, or who had already maxed it. But then ironman was released. No way to transfer progress or wealth, you have to start over from scratch. What was the result? It brought new life to the game for them, and many of these burnt-out veterans made irons and continued playing for thousands more hours.

It is rather strange though. If you start by playing a regular account first and then go to ironman, then you have to start again from scratch. But if you start by playing ironman first and then go to a regular account, then for some reason starting from scratch is a bad thing? Why would you need to go through everything twice if you start with one but only once if you start with the other?

[The underdog]

What's the reasoning behind the whole "shouldn't trade over gp from your iron" if you are bored of the game mode but have spent over 1k hours you should atleast be offered alch value for your items?

Interested to hear your thoughts on this

You get inflated rewards and perks like customs and special party hats grow on trees. More items from a good money maker can come into the game. Example bandos is 50b an hour, everyone wants to do it but there's only place for 1x 50b an hour since 1x boss. But if 10x iron alt make 50b an hour in instance, transfer it over to main that's boosted. Alch value especially now does mitigate most of that though.

Yet again just contradicted the shit out of yourself all in 1 paragraph, no way is any money maker currently instanced make more money on an iron considering alch value. This been alch values before and after the change

Wilderness spawners are, but it's a theoretical example as to why it can be problematic not saying it's like that right now. It's not contradicting myself if I say it isn't very much the case now. Fruits can grow on trees, no they don't because it's winter

I think it's kind of pointless to out rule it since it's alch value anyways. But I do think pure cash shouldn't transfer 1:1 to the 'pker'/main. Just make it the same 61% applied elsewhere.

[Uim legolas]

Poor guy just asked a question, and started a whole argument in the same thread.

I remember the days where I could just drop items over from my iron to main. That really was OP...

The past few years, I've cleaned a lot of irons for their wealth. It was just a great way to have some fun on my main when I got bored of that specific iron. It never made me want to take a break from or quit the server, since I enjoy early game irons just as much.

But reading @Rapsey his arguments here, if it's proven many players quit after cleaning their iron, and this mechanic brings way too many trillions into the game (must have added quite some myself to the eco doing this over the past years), maybe it isn't bad to consider making a change to this.

[Ur nans hc]

I think if an iron wants to trade over to his main for the alch value (currently significantly less than the real value) they should be able to IMO. They had spent the time grinding said wealth etc. Osrs allows drop trading from irons to mains which couldn’t work because the player base along with the customs irons get from caskets etc. There has been several mods in the past year or two that I know of who’s done this as-well so it does come as a shock to see you say it’s against the rules.

[The underdog]

Buncha staking addicts

[Raj]

There has been several mods in the past year or two that I know of who’s done this as-well so it does come as a shock to see you say it’s against the rules.

That's fairly irrelevant to be fair. It wasn't against the rules before, it may (or may not) be in the future. If that rule change were to happen, no one who did it before would be punished for it, or literally every iron with over 1t in their bank would be banned, which would obviously be really bad for the server.

[Uim elon]

There has been several mods in the past year or two that I know of who’s done this as-well so it does come as a shock to see you say it’s against the rules.

That's fairly irrelevant to be fair. It wasn't against the rules before, it may (or may not) be in the future. If that rule change were to happen, no one who did it before would be punished for it, or literally every iron with over 1t in their bank would be banned, which would obviously be really bad for the server.

Is it against the rules, or is it not against the rules? Rapsey stated that players who do this run the risk of being punished for abusing the mechanic. Now you’re coming back and saying it isn’t punishable. One of you is wrong.

There is no risk of punishment for doing something that isn’t against the rules.

[Azu rite]

There has been several mods in the past year or two that I know of who’s done this as-well so it does come as a shock to see you say it’s against the rules.

That's fairly irrelevant to be fair. It wasn't against the rules before, it may (or may not) be in the future. If that rule change were to happen, no one who did it before would be punished for it, or literally every iron with over 1t in their bank would be banned, which would obviously be really bad for the server.

Is it against the rules, or is it not against the rules? Rapsey stated that players who do this run the risk of being punished for abusing the mechanic. Now you’re coming back and saying it isn’t punishable. One of you is wrong.

There is no risk of punishment for doing something that isn’t against the rules.

Doubt

[Kagens]

But it dosent say its against the rules.. in the rules... its such a normal thing to do, evne in the main game.. ive never been aware that it was against the rules. should clearify it atleast...