forums.rs

Forums

Poll #1 now live

Quick find code: 294-295-165-64712900

of 40
Librarian 42

Librarian 42

Posts: 1,411 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I voted yes, despite never having PK'd, however I can see how some people have been confused. I'm putting it down to falling school standards :)

However now its been a poll I sincerely hope that if it fails to get the 75% it isn't included. If it is included on 71% where does that end (51% maybe) Standards are in place and should be kept (I think personally some should be raised)

It has been stated that the poll can be re-run especailly considering the confusion and maybe re-worded so its easier for some of the people to understand.

Of course it still may fail to reach the required 75% and then we have to think about how many times you want to re-run it.

Librarian 42 thinks Jagex should honour the results of the original Old School Poll

15-Mar-2013 14:43:46

[#3XZPL2PQP]

[#3XZPL2PQP]

Posts: 13 Bronze Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
gg rs, slowly jagex are killing this game by listening dumbs who just can't habituate to classic. Is it 07 rs, or EoC beta?
All this little updates like hp, prayer, run icon on minimap and take a rest option are killing this game.
Jagex stop updating this game!

15-Mar-2013 16:28:27

Le Pain
Dec Member 2022

Le Pain

Posts: 1,104 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
as a worldwide known and respected company like Jagex, they should consider allowing a f2p portion for their games ... but that goes behond the question of the poll?


a game shouldn't be exclusive to a few persons :p

15-Mar-2013 16:29:25

cat dog frog

cat dog frog

Posts: 528 Steel Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
It saddens me to see the people on here are too stupid to comprehend the fact that implementing F2P pking worlds STILL requires payment. I have lost all hope for this community after reading some of the posts for why people have voted 'No'.

15-Mar-2013 16:53:01

Lord Nev
Dec Member 2023

Lord Nev

Posts: 568 Steel Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Pleasse don't vote for herbs to no longer be Uni. They already changed their name to grimly and the forum ranted until they were uni again. This is how it was back in 2007, and thats the way this game was supposed to be, the same as it was in 2007...

15-Mar-2013 17:16:20

Mod Pips

Mod Pips

Jagex Moderator Forum Profile Posts by user
I'd like to echo something Mod Ash said earlier, which is that you don't need to down-vote a feature because you think it will make another get produced more quickly, or that you are worried about it taking up development time.

For the first few polls we're intending to offer up 'quick wins' which we can get published fairly quickly, and we've made sure that everything offered in the poll can be done in a time frame of weeks rather than months.

15-Mar-2013 17:44:41

Angel2D4

Angel2D4

Posts: 15,772 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
"For the first few polls we're intending to offer up 'quick wins' which we can get published fairly quickly, and we've made sure that everything offered in the poll can be done in a time frame of weeks rather than months."

-

You make me very concerned with your use of "quick wins"... does that mean you will only be offering up ideas you believe the community will vote in favor of (which leads me to the concern that you will simply "round up" the vote the way the vote for Old School was)?

I think there is one item that you -should- add to the next poll...

Let the players decide how many total levels required to vote. MANY are in agreement that 100 is simply too low and allows the Old School haters to impact the game in negative ways.

I see the 100 total requirement as a very tiny.. baby step.. and would like to see you let the old school players decide the requirements, given that the votes DO have an impact on the game. "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" -Martin Luther King Jr.

15-Mar-2013 17:50:36

Quick find code: 294-295-165-64712900 Back to Top