[Denied] Actual Ironman Wealth Valuation

[Glass Animal]

I spent a little bit talking with @Exxistential on how his services values Ironman accounts and I loved it.
As far as I know Sythe determines valuation on a case by case basis but like the TOS why can’t there be a set value on Ironman account valuation.

I truly feel it would deter services from taking the orders let alone messing around when a 400m bank is worth 3x the value.

Exx and his staff have implemented, from my understanding a 3x or 4x valuation of an IM bank. Essentially 300m being valued at 900m/1.2b...now proving missing wealth is hard as well but if players followed a daily bank screenshot and only the worker having account access then that could eliminate that as well. Rough idea but Sythe needs something, there have been far too many reports of missing Ironman wealth.

 

[President]

I spent a little bit talking with @Exxistential on how his services values Ironman accounts and I loved it.
As far as I know Sythe determines valuation on a case by case basis but like the TOS why can’t there be a set value on Ironman account valuation.

I truly feel it would deter services from taking the orders let alone messing around when a 400m bank is worth 3x the value.

Exx and his staff have implemented, from my understanding a 3x or 4x valuation of an IM bank. Essentially 300m being valued at 900m/1.2b...now proving missing wealth is hard as well but if players followed a daily bank screenshot and only the worker having account access then that could eliminate that as well. Rough idea but Sythe needs something, there have been far too many reports of missing Ironman wealth.

You'll never be able to choose a fixed value that's justifiable; end-game iron men have an easier time accumulating resources and money compared to starter iron men; these end-game iron men start have more and more money-making options available and start to look like normal accounts when looking at the possible ways that they can produce wealth/resources. So there's a discrepancy.
A non-fixed value that's derived from some sort of equation is too complicated and will envoke even more debate. The best thing to do is to determine the value of items on a case-by-case basis. In any case, I agree with the notion that at the very least: 1 'iron man' gp ≥ 1 'normal' gp. This should always be a rule of thumb imo.

 

[Glass Animal]

You'll never be able to choose a fixed value that's justifiable; end-game iron men have an easier time accumulating resources and money compared to starter iron men; these end-game iron men start have more and more money-making options available and start to look like normal accounts when looking at the possible ways that they can produce wealth/resources. So there's a discrepancy.
A non-fixed value that's derived from some sort of equation is too complicated and will envoke even more debate. The best thing to do is to determine the value of items on a case-by-case basis. In any case, I agree with the notion that at the very least: 1 'iron man' gp ≥ 1 'normal' gp. This should always be a rule of thumb imo.

Irrelevant. End game Ironman are far less likely to order services.
Just because you have a better chance at getting alchs doesn’t mean you didn’t spend 500 hours grinding a DWH man or 300 hours catching chins and killing kree.

Thanks for the input but I don’t see that at all.

Setting a set value is setting a standard, you still put hours upon hours into achieving items or skilling.

End game or not, it’s the hours put in to achieve those items. Ranger boots are another disgusting grind for IM and then killing Cerb for pegs is so much more than killing cerb.

You need ranarr weeds, snake grass, vials of water. You need to make those potions.
You need high level food, you need to fish that and then cook that.
You need gear and armour.
If anything an end game Ironman should have a higher valued bank.
Gold is literally worthless to an Ironman, you can have a 5m/hr gp method and you still have to spend hours at shamans to get a DWH.

 

[President]

Irrelevant. End game Ironman are far less likely to order services.
Just because you have a better chance at getting alchs doesn’t mean you didn’t spend 500 hours grinding a DWH man or 300 hours catching chins and killing kree.

Thanks for the input but I don’t see that at all.

Setting a set value is setting a standard, you still put hours upon hours into achieving items or skilling.

End game or not, it’s the hours put in to achieve those items. Ranger boots are another disgusting grind for IM and then killing Cerb for pegs is so much more than killing cerb.

You need ranarr weeds, snake grass, vials of water. You need to make those potions.
You need high level food, you need to fish that and then cook that.
You need gear and armour.
If anything an end game Ironman should have a higher valued bank.
Gold is literally worthless to an Ironman, you can have a 5m/hr gp method and you still have to spend hours at shamans to get a DWH.

I'm not talking about gold in the literal sense. I'm talking about item's gold-value as the game portrays it.

Anyway, my point does make sense and is not irrelavant. There's a relationship between how fast you can gather certain items and your skill-levels in the game. Levels make you scale. Not to mention items themselves make you scale. It's far easier to get certain items when you have set items, than when you start from scratch. In addition, the normal game scales in a different way when you have certain resources, because the fact that there's a free market, heavily influences the value of items.

Anyway, you're also contradicting yourself by saying that there are some methods that make 5m/h on iron men, but they're useless in general. How is it fair to say that accounts that grind those methods for a couple of hours are the resource-wise equivalent of a long-grind DWH account...

Don't get me wrong, I'll repeat again, I agree with the notion that 1 'iron man' gp shouldn't be valued the same as 1 'normal' gp (talking in items), but dropping a scalar on it to fix this doesn't justify the nuance of the situation that you're talking about.

 

Irrelevant. End game Ironman are far less likely to order services.
Just because you have a better chance at getting alchs doesn’t mean you didn’t spend 500 hours grinding a DWH man or 300 hours catching chins and killing kree.

Thanks for the input but I don’t see that at all.

Setting a set value is setting a standard, you still put hours upon hours into achieving items or skilling.

End game or not, it’s the hours put in to achieve those items. Ranger boots are another disgusting grind for IM and then killing Cerb for pegs is so much more than killing cerb.

You need ranarr weeds, snake grass, vials of water. You need to make those potions.
You need high level food, you need to fish that and then cook that.
You need gear and armour.
If anything an end game Ironman should have a higher valued bank.
Gold is literally worthless to an Ironman, you can have a 5m/hr gp method and you still have to spend hours at shamans to get a DWH.

Not irrelevant.
End game irons with lots of COX and TOB KC tend to have a lot of duplicates.
Even when not, a T bow on an ironman is not worth x4.

OT: Very clear TOS should be a must for working on ironman accs imo. Both clients and service providers should discuss who are taking which risks. A service provider can cover his services without taking any responsibilities, but it should be discussed and agreed to beforehand. A fixed rate would not be great, I think there are too many variables that make it staff should decide it per case. There are not a lot of these cases fortunately so I don't think its neccesary.

 

The issue with the majority of item reports is very simple, who took the gold?

let's say for example if I had iron man, then I want to quit the game, why not dump it on the service provider clean the bank and make 2x my bank in return?

my main point is why it's case by case is simple, it's impossible to prove what actually happened,

incases where the worker admits to it could work I guess

 

[Glass Animal]

Not irrelevant.
End game irons with lots of COX and TOB KC tend to have a lot of duplicates.
Even when not, a T bow on an ironman is not worth x4.

OT: Very clear TOS should be a must for working on ironman accs imo. Both clients and service providers should discuss who are taking which risks. A service provider can cover his services without taking any responsibilities, but it should be discussed and agreed to beforehand. A fixed rate would not be great, I think there are too many variables that make it staff should decide it per case. There are not a lot of these cases fortunately so I don't think its neccesary.

I guess I’m hung up on time served to get and squire the items. You and President make valid points.

The issue with the majority of item reports is very simple, who took the gold?

let's say for example if I had iron man, then I want to quit the game, why not dump it on the service provider clean the bank and make 2x my bank in return?

my main point is why it's case by case is simple, it's impossible to prove what actually happened,

incases where the worker admits to it could work I guess

It sounds more complicated then just implementing a 3x or 4x ratio. I still think something needs to be done.
possibly separate TOS for Ironman services ?

 

I mean, it should be calculated at the rate of what it would cost to obtain those items, eg dragon warhammer would say cost 100k per shaman kill x5000 (to get average drop rate, obviously the extra loot is negated by the cost of supplies for blowpipe scales / darts / ppots etc) = 500m

 

[Glass Animal]

I mean, it should be calculated at the rate of what it would cost to obtain those items, eg dragon warhammer would say cost 100k per shaman kill x5000 (to get average drop rate, obviously the extra loot is negated by the cost of supplies for blowpipe scales / darts / ppots etc) = 500m

That’s how I was trying to explain it. Very well put and to the point. Would have to be done on a case by case basis as well I suppose.

 

[Miss Enigma]

Ultimately there is no great solution here because of what pikachu brought up.

No matter how many screenshots you post. Daily wealth updates. Wealth at the time you log out posts/at the end of the order. There is still a window of time between the last time a service provider supposedly logs out and the time that a client logs in that either party can scam the gold/items.
And if a client is quiting whynot get more than ge price for the items/gold?

 

[Joca94]

I get what Pikachu is saying but in reality, you would make more money selling the ironman with those items than selling the gold or even double the value of gold if you did take advantage of a service provider (just my opinion)

 

What about a potential scenario of:

- Providing change password link to the worker specifically, which will allow them to set the password on the account
- Logging the bank in full prior to the job start & having the worker post daily bank updates(?)
- Once finalized the worker provides the password so this can be saved in case the original owner wants to save this with the account information

I guess you would run into the problem of having an unknown password on the account & most people may not be happy with this, but it can confirm only one person on the account as only one person would know the password.

The (?) above may not be needed if there is only one person with access to the account. If you log the bank prior to the service & at the end of the service are missing x,y,z items then it would be the worker removing this. This would also need to be recorded once the original owner logs into the account to verify/confirm the bank upon first log in after services complete.

 

What about a potential scenario of:

- Providing change password link to the worker specifically, which will allow them to set the password on the account
- Logging the bank in full prior to the job start & having the worker post daily bank updates(?)
- Once finalized the worker provides the password so this can be saved in case the original owner wants to save this with the account information

I guess you would run into the problem of having an unknown password on the account & most people may not be happy with this, but it can confirm only one person on the account as only one person would know the password.

The (?) above may not be needed if there is only one person with access to the account. If you log the bank prior to the service & at the end of the service are missing x,y,z items then it would be the worker removing this. This would also need to be recorded once the original owner logs into the account to verify/confirm the bank upon first log in after services complete.

Definitely a good option to secure ironman banks.
I think when working on an account with a high bank this should always be adviced to a customer. It's the customers right to refuse, but I don't think many people even know of this option.

 

What about a potential scenario of:

- Providing change password link to the worker specifically, which will allow them to set the password on the account
- Logging the bank in full prior to the job start & having the worker post daily bank updates(?)
- Once finalized the worker provides the password so this can be saved in case the original owner wants to save this with the account information

I guess you would run into the problem of having an unknown password on the account & most people may not be happy with this, but it can confirm only one person on the account as only one person would know the password.

The (?) above may not be needed if there is only one person with access to the account. If you log the bank prior to the service & at the end of the service are missing x,y,z items then it would be the worker removing this. This would also need to be recorded once the original owner logs into the account to verify/confirm the bank upon first log in after services complete.

Definitely a good option to secure ironman banks.
I think when working on an account with a high bank this should always be adviced to a customer. It's the customers right to refuse, but I don't think many people even know of this option.

This could work, but ultimately the OO always has access to the registered email if there goal was to quit the iron like @Pikachu suggested what's too stop the owner from changing the password and logging in and just drop trading it?
We'd be in the exact same situation, (Worker is saying "Oh the password was changed it wasn't me" - The customers saying "Well i didn't change the password i want my bank repaid 2x"..

Although the idea is a good one, it' still squares back to the original argument (Who actually took the bank/Changed the password).

I mean I don't see enough reports of high value ironman's banks going missing anyway so I don't think this is a huge problem.

 

This could work, but ultimately the OO always has access to the registered email if there goal was to quit the iron like @Pikachu suggested what's too stop the owner from changing the password and logging in and just drop trading it?
We'd be in the exact same situation, (Worker is saying "Oh the password was changed it wasn't me" - The customers saying "Well i didn't change the password i want my bank repaid 2x"..

Although the idea is a good one, it' still squares back to the original argument (Who actually took the bank/Changed the password).

I mean I don't see enough reports of high value ironman's banks going missing anyway so I don't think this is a huge problem.

Then this would negate the terms that were agreed upon. If the one password were changed (which would be the only scenario that would occur in your example above with the OO 'recovering' with the email attached the worker can document this & they can halt the services & advise of the password being changed. Then if there is now a 'scam' report stating things were missing after this there would not be evidence to support the worker did this.

It's not like the worker would be able to change the password in this scenario.

 

[Glass Animal]

This is getting a little off topic. No one is debating a scam quit / exit scam, that will happen no matter what you do for security.
The biggest flaw in providing services in any industry is the human factor.

@Kanye has a great suggestion, and Chicks does something similar to this. They use private note to pass the password onto the worker and eliminate worker/customer interactions.
Now if you followed this similarly where you pass on the password reset link to the worker so only the worker has the password and at the end of the job, the password is given back to the customer to confirm everything has been completed.
Add this onto a inflated Ironman ratio on wealth and it seems fairly solid.

 

Then this would negate the terms that were agreed upon. If the one password were changed (which would be the only scenario that would occur in your example above with the OO 'recovering' with the email attached the worker can document this & they can halt the services & advise of the password being changed. Then if there is now a 'scam' report stating things were missing after this there would not be evidence to support the worker did this.

It's not like the worker would be able to change the password in this scenario.

Right.. but then it's up too Sythe Mods to decide who is being honest? The scenario i explained was missed by you:

• 
  
• Customer orders
• Customer gives password change link
• Worker changes pass and logs in
• Customer "changes the password" logs in and clears it
• Worker notices password is changed so brings it up in the discord
• Customer states he didn't change the password what the hells going on, "resets password" logs in and realises his bank is cleaned and wants a refund
• Worker says the password was changed and it wasn't him
• Sythe mods are left to decide regardless of any TOS who it was who wiped the account? The worker could be lying about the password being changed(seeing as no one but him knows the password)
• Option: Discord owner has the password aswel the worker - However the Discord owner can just steal it and blame it on the worker/vice versa (Exact same issue we have now)

In conclusion I think it would be a great idea ^ but given the reasons above i don't see how it would work - That's just my personal opinion.

*Edit

The discord owner could be given the password if the person placing the order did the following*

Customer has Authenticator Enabled -
Customer gives worker password change link
Worker shares this password with the discord owner
However only the worker is given the authenticator code to login.

^This way the Discord owner can check if the password is the same (Only by logging in via the homepage - As if you do it via OSRS LOGIN you get the authenticator prompt even if it's an invalid password - however on the homepage it tells you it's an invalid password).


This way, the discord owner is aware of the password and CANNOT login; this would be the only way i could see that would 100% prove only the WORKER had access to the account.

 

[Cruxkill]

Now if you followed this similarly where you pass on the password reset link to the worker so only the worker has the password and at the end of the job, the password is given back to the customer to confirm everything has been completed.

If you truly want to avoid this at 100% rate and be super careful, maybe add this to a video call in which the customer clears the note and resets password (of course, covering any sensitive info) and right after that checks the account while on this call. If bank is alright, go on, if bank is not alright then the worker would be the only responsible. Maybe too much effort, and considering current methods of checking the account by the customer, it will always be hard to decide who did it if the account turns out to be cleaned.

Another option would be to let the customer arrange the pass change and be ready to check, and right when the check is going to happen do the video call I mentioned and compare the lobby last login timer to the delivery time, even though, at this point we currently at anything can be faked and we just decide what to trust/believe.

Edit (to stay in line with the actual topic):

There is a lot to consider to give value to anything that needs to be done on an ironman account, and also the specific kind of ironman it is. For example if its very risky to do some collection of 'x' item on a hardcore, it should be taken into account, or if you need to constantly get something on ultimate accounts. I usually just add a simple multiplier for starter ironmen (which I got fixed) in the case of questing, PvM (collection and/or getting killcount for other reasons) and such. The wealth obtained in such activities, in each scenario should be taken into account by how hard it should have been to get such items etc. So yeah, I support that each case has to be individually evaluated so you can decide how much it should represent.

Sometimes it could be simple if the account is at certain milestone and value of such account is known, though.

 

Could work if the service provider gets the change password, so that only yhe service provider knows the pass for yhe duration of the service. If not i do not see any service provider that has a worker scam an iron having to refund a si gle gp. Without the workers admission.

 

At the end of the day, the buyer should simply do their research and use a service they feel they can trust.
Sythe can't make these adjustments, as there will never be a set amount that can be deemed fair, they'll always have to go on a case by case basis.
Many Sythe mods have ironmen of their own and know the value the items hold, that's not an issue.

If you put in the time to do your research, you make sure that you're hiring reputable sources that are using workers that have deposits that more than cover your bank (by a large margin), then you'll massively reduce any risk. That's really the only thing that needs to change, is that it should be against Sythe rules to have a worker on an account that doesn't have a deposit that covers the bank. Unfortunately, it would be impossible to monitor, but it should still be a rule that's reportable.

There also needs to be harsher punishments for outsourcing work without advising clients that you're doing so, as that's just putting a clients account in crosshairs.