forums.rs

Forums

Dev Blog: Rejuvenate the wildy Thread is locked

Quick find code: 380-381-35-65435515

of 156
kruma

kruma

Posts: 10 Bronze Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
bottom line, and what the end result should be, at least:

- wilderness alterations implemented in all worlds, or none.

- reduction of at least 10 servers, ~20 max*
*alternatively you could just be logical and F2P old school, as a business model this would only attract more players, persuade more to subscribe for full benefits, and improve the overall livelihood and quality of the game. The true essence and attraction, what made Runescape a success in the first place, classically, is the F2P model and how it was implemented.


You cannot postpone this and use bots as an excuse. Bots will always be a persistent challenge to deal with, acknowledging this is just common sense. It would be far more beneficial to just initiate F2P and keep bots and RMT as a top priority.

The mentality of the developer's make absolutely no sense to me to be honest, as this approach would increase your revenue, as opposed to the way you all have strong convictions for, apparently.

14-Jan-2014 22:02:15

ChinStar
Jul Member 2019

ChinStar

Posts: 1,348 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Hi Mat K Don't want to seem cocky or anything, But your map shows multi a lot better but I've noticed one place you have forgot to put on. just by the entrance of the Agility course on both sides. but alot of the other places looks spot on! (well done)

14-Jan-2014 22:09:13 - Last edited on 14-Jan-2014 22:12:56 by ChinStar

Darelzel

Darelzel

Posts: 3,592 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
It always seemed pretty stupid that the wilderness is this ravaged, unholy ground of dangerous creatures, which is feared by Runescape citizens, yet, despite the apparent fondness for wall building amongst the npc populace, only a metre wide ditch has been dug to keep the nasties out.

I think this would be cool also, as it would cause pkers to gather around these exits. Perhaps we could even have agility shortcuts spaced along the wall as a reward for one of the most tedious skills in the game? :)

Well, in RS3, the ditch has been replaced with remnants of a wall that people can jump over. Personally, I'd have a few NPCs in Edgeville or just north of Varrock and near the Jolly Boar, and Goblin Village explain what the Wilderness is (with dialogue appearing above their heads to get players' attention to talk to them).

As for your wall idea, I don't know if it'd be good to only have a few spots where you can cross the wall. But I am all for stuff that makes it more difficult for players to enter the Wilderness by accident, or get lured in by scammers hoping to steal their stuff. I'm a player from 2005, back before there was a ditch/wall, and I saw scammers trying to lure people into the Wilderness all the time. I don't want that to happen again.

14-Jan-2014 22:25:13

Gamma Male

Gamma Male

Posts: 2,377 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
After some thought, I'm not sure if those would really drive activity to the wild since the bank is abit far and noone mines addy for the xp, I still think it should be done but with another small change.

What do you guy sthink of some sort of Magic notepaper (like RS3's) that is dropped by all the bosses in the wild, where you can turn your resources (ores, fish, logs, maybe even dragon bones) into bank notes if you're in the wild? This would make people kill the bosses and would let people camp in the wild without hurting their xp/gp per hour (thus increasing their risk) and wouldn't be as OP as RS3's version of it

I'm working on a concept for a quest with the reward being a spell that can create noted items. I'm thinking I will submit it in the next Player Made Content. Could use some help though, think you'd be interested?

14-Jan-2014 22:27:08

Darelzel

Darelzel

Posts: 3,592 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
*alternatively you could just be logical and F2P old school, as a business model this would only attract more players, persuade more to subscribe for full benefits, and improve the overall livelihood and quality of the game. The true essence and attraction, what made Runescape a success in the first place, classically, is the F2P model and how it was implemented.


You cannot postpone this and use bots as an excuse. Bots will always be a persistent challenge to deal with, acknowledging this is just common sense. It would be far more beneficial to just initiate F2P and keep bots and RMT as a top priority.

The mentality of the developer's make absolutely no sense to me to be honest, as this approach would increase your revenue, as opposed to the way you all have strong convictions for, apparently.

Well, I'd be all for the addition of two or three F2p Old School worlds, following the f2p restrictions that were in the actual 2007. (for example, the gates to Taverley, the Dig Site, and Brimhaven would be 'members only' gates). This would help a great deal in increasing interest in Old School, bringing back old players and encouraging new players to check it out.

If there were only two or three f2p worlds, it'd also be easier to check for botters, report them, and get rid of them.

14-Jan-2014 22:29:10

Capt McGee

Capt McGee

Posts: 4,269 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
*alternatively you could just be logical and F2P old school, as a business model this would only attract more players, persuade more to subscribe for full benefits, and improve the overall livelihood and quality of the game. The true essence and attraction, what made Runescape a success in the first place, classically, is the F2P model and how it was implemented.


You cannot postpone this and use bots as an excuse. Bots will always be a persistent challenge to deal with, acknowledging this is just common sense. It would be far more beneficial to just initiate F2P and keep bots and RMT as a top priority.

The mentality of the developer's make absolutely no sense to me to be honest, as this approach would increase your revenue, as opposed to the way you all have strong convictions for, apparently.

Well, I'd be all for the addition of two or three F2p Old School worlds, following the f2p restrictions that were in the actual 2007. (for example, the gates to Taverley, the Dig Site, and Brimhaven would be 'members only' gates). This would help a great deal in increasing interest in Old School, bringing back old players and encouraging new players to check it out.

If there were only two or three f2p worlds, it'd also be easier to check for botters, report them, and get rid of them.

Mini-map orbs should be F2P.
Bank tabs (when released) should be F2P*
**/Trading update (when released) should be F2P. Everything stated here is forwarded from a major corporation. Nothing here is my opinion. Enjoy your salad.

14-Jan-2014 22:41:33

Doey
Mar Member 2024

Doey

Posts: 37 Bronze Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Revs:
I'm fine with there being revs so long that they have their own cave where PvP is enabled. I found revs to be a pain.

Limiting worlds:
Absolutely not, first off, the wilderness is meant to be a dangerous place where there is a chance at dying. Limiting worlds also kind of contradicts the planned placement of skilling areas within the wilderness. The skillers would obviously go to safe worlds and skill there. If that were to happen, players could yield in tons of resources free without risk and that takes the risk out of skilling there and the same applies to things like green dragons. There is an upside to limiting worlds which is there being more people in the wilderness allowing more people to find fights. The way I see it is the cons outweigh the pros.

Swag bag:
I personally don't mind the Swag bag, I like the name of it too.

14-Jan-2014 22:43:28 - Last edited on 14-Jan-2014 22:45:01 by Doey

Eat That One

Eat That One

Posts: 7 Bronze Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
bottom line, and what the end result should be, at least:

- wilderness alterations implemented in all worlds, or none.

- reduction of at least 10 servers, ~20 max*
*alternatively you could just be logical and F2P old school, as a business model this would only attract more players, persuade more to subscribe for full benefits, and improve the overall livelihood and quality of the game. The true essence and attraction, what made Runescape a success in the first place, classically, is the F2P model and how it was implemented.


You cannot postpone this and use bots as an excuse. Bots will always be a persistent challenge to deal with, acknowledging this is just common sense. It would be far more beneficial to just initiate F2P and keep bots and RMT as a top priority.

The mentality of the developer's make absolutely no sense to me to be honest, as this approach would increase your revenue, as opposed to the way you all have strong convictions for, apparently.

Spot on!

14-Jan-2014 22:51:50

Quick find code: 380-381-35-65435515 Back to Top