Feedback on Merge Request 1302: Reintroduce PvP + Wilderness Enhancements

[Valpuri]

This is my feedback regarding this merge request: https://gitlab.com/2009scape/2009scape/ ... uests/1302

The lack of wilderness PvP and inclusion of revenants throughout the wilderness is instrumental to the zeitgeist of RuneScape in 2009. Wilderness PvP should therefore not be forced upon those looking to experience a remake of the era. This proposed system locks off content from those wishing to avoid PvP, and on top of this, the additions to the "deep wilderness" (NPC spawns, fishing spots, ore rocks, item-to-banknote-swapping, and monster drops) are a clear-cut case of custom content that compromises the integrity of the project. Given the zealot-like insistence of authenticity elsewhere (such as the bare-bones nature of the client and the preservation of authentic bugs), it baffles me how these changes could even be considered. These proposals mimic the "wilderness rejuvenation" updates of Old School RuneScape: a game that members of this community and staff have repeatedly criticized for its failure to uphold the principles of its source material as well as its unrestrained power creep. Even the 2009Scape website promises, "Unlike Oldschool Runescape, we keep true to the Gower brothers' vision of the game." It is thus incomprehensible that these changes would even be considered, especially without even consulting the larger 2009Scape community, and I fear the precedent that they would set for the future of this project.

The manner in which to handle wilderness PvP is simple. It is an inauthentic game setting that doesn't affect those who choose not to engage in it, and thus it mirrors the iron-man modes exactly. It should therefore follow the same principles upon which the iron-man modes were implemented. Make wilderness PvP it an account-based toggle, disabled by default, with the option to opt-in (and back out, by speaking to the Lumbridge guide). There would be no additional benefits or lack thereof relating to a player's wilderness PvP status. This would create the most-authentic experience for those wishing to relive RuneScape as it was in 2009 while still allowing those who enjoy wilderness PvP to experience it.

I will also warn that level 45 wilderness is an entirely arbitrary point with no distinct boundary, and having potentially devastating repercussion for entering it is therefore highly dubious. The wilderness ditch exists to create a clear and unmistakable boundary that is nearly impossible to cross without intention such that players don't end up in a dangerous situation by accident. Such a boundary is essential to prevent accidental crossing and the potential repercussion it holds. However, without this clear boundary, level 45 wilderness poses the risk of players accidentally entering into unsafe, PvP-enabled zones without intending to, which is highly problematic. If you were to include a deep-wilderness PvP mechanic, the only convenient boundary for this is fence that separates the free and members-only areas at level 49 wilderness. The gates would also require a warning pop-up as well as modification so that they can only be moved through deliberately, just like the wilderness ditch. They could be made to function like the Al-Kharid toll gate or Grand Tree doors, allowing the player to move through and then closing behind. The warning for the wilderness lever would also require updating.

I can also only assume that the non-PvP elements added in the deep wilderness are to attract players to the area. The concept of bringing players into the wilderness to do non-PvP activities in an attempt to create PvP engagements is fundamentally flawed. It creates the situation where only one player is engaged in an activity that they wish to be engaged in. This will not only fail to create meaningful PvP engagements but encouraging such situations will certainly result in an increase in toxicity and a schism in the player base. Fundamentally, the situation being created is the entrapment of victims for bullying; it is therefore entirely incompatible with the creation of a universally-enjoyable gameplay element. Incentivizing PvP can only be done correctly by creating a situation in which both participants are willingly engaging in PvP. Apart from making wilderness PvP opt-in only, or by implementing the 2009-era PvP mini-games like the Duel Arena, Clan Wars, Fist of Guthix, and Bounty Hunter, I could not provide you with any suggestions on how to do that while remaining within the definition of a 2009-era remake.

Thus I ask, please reconsider these changes. Include the community within the discussion of how, if ever, to re-implement wilderness PvP. I suggest the creation a forum thread detailing the potential changes as well as any future potential custom content so that less tech-savvy players can help to provide feedback. Poll any custom content and tweak it until it receives at least majority support prior to being added, and remember to always consider the core goal of the project: to recreate the 2009 era of RuneScape.


TL;DR: These changes do not align with the stated goal of the project and would create a concerning precedent for future changes. Custom content should not lightly be considered and should be subject to community feedback and approval prior to addition. Wilderness PvP is inauthentic to 2009, like iron-man mode, and I would suggest implementing it under the same principles, if at all.

[Ceikry]

That's fine, I'll remove the PvP enhancements, etc and we'll just have to wait for the quests to obtain monkfish. I'm alright with that, I was trying to do others a favor.

[Ceikry]

Also, FYI, it's not compromising to the authenticity of the project when every single thing added in this update can be configured or outright disabled via server config. How we choose to configure the live server is irrelevant to the authenticity of the broader project. If this is truly how you feel re: inauthentic configurable changes, I shall also make sure to disable slayer rerolls, skillcape perks (which have FAR more substantial balance implications than anything added with this update), etc.

[Valpuri]

That's fine, I'll remove the PvP enhancements, etc and we'll just have to wait for the quests to obtain monkfish. I'm alright with that, I was trying to do others a favor.

This is in-line with current handling of many quest-locked items and areas and is therefore regrettable but not unexpected. If, however, you did wish to include monkfish fishing spots outside of Piscatoris Fishing Colony pending the addition of the Swan Song quest, this is entirely possible without its conflation with unrelated wilderness PvP mechanics. Two ideal locations might be Catherby and the Fishing Guild.

Also, FYI, it's not compromising to the authenticity of the project when every single thing added in this update can be configured or outright disabled via server config. How we choose to configure the live server is irrelevant to the authenticity of the broader project. If this is truly how you feel re: inauthentic configurable changes, I shall also make sure to disable slayer rerolls, skillcape perks (which have FAR more substantial balance implications than anything added with this update), etc.

There is an important distinction between the proposed wilderness mechanics and slayer re-rolls: a player can choose not to use the slayer re-rolls. Meanwhile, there are entirely legitimate reasons to enter the deep wilderness that do not involve PvP, but during these times, players can not choose to be unable be attacked by other players in the proposed wilderness changes.

This holds true with skill cape perks as well: a player can choose not to wear the skill capes when the perks would come into effect. However, I admit that the implementation isn't perfect, as there are still situations in which a player would want the stat bonuses of the cape where the perks would come into effect. This would be another excellent scenario to add a toggle, perhaps by wearing and 'operating' the cape in the same style as Ava's devices.

I also admit that the slayer re-rolls and skill cape perks affect the balance of the game, but I do not agree that they have more substantial implications than the proposed deep wilderness changes. In particular, the addition of monsters with valuable drops to multi-combat zones in the deep wilderness, especially when combined with their ability to drop brawling gloves and PvP gear, is extremely balance-affecting. The first and less problematic issue is that this would devalue highly sought-after items such as the abyssal whip, the dark bow, and the PvP gear. The second, more-problematic issue is that brawling gloves allow the player to achieve the fastest experience rates in the game. Making them not only easily-farmable but also making their use potentially highly-profitable and with the potential for a positive feedback loop is far more balance-affecting than, for example, the ability to skip a slayer task, an invisible +6 to attack, or the increase of total hitpoints pool by 11%.

While I fully admit that the precise purpose of the live server has not been deliberately stated (that I know of), it does hold the de facto purpose of being a testing grounds of implemented content as well as tool to attract the attention of the individuals necessary for the project to achieve its goals. Therefore, these changes to it would still compromise the integrity of the project's stated purpose by limiting the live server's capacity to fulfill those key functions. In other words, in order to fulfill its practical functions, it should be possible to have a completely-authentic, 2009-era experience on the live server. However, this does not mean that the only acceptable experience is that completely-authentic one. As previously stated, account-based gameplay toggles that do not affect the experience of others are completely acceptable. Furthermore, quality-of-life changes like slayer re-rolls and minor enhancements to gameplay like skill capes perks which do not have significant balance implications and which can be deliberately avoided if desired are also acceptable, but they should be approved via community poll first.

[Ceikry]

Community polls are not a good idea, the majority of players do not concisely understand game balance. Polls used to be a thing here, and we stopped using them exactly because it became a problem of the majority of players having 0 understanding of balance (as well as issues like poll rigging). Regardless, this discussion is immaterial, the MR is closed, the time is wasted, PvP will not be returning now or ever in the future. I hear requests for it to return for months, try to introduce it in a way that would make everyone happy, and then all I hear through the grapevine is people complaining about it. I will not offer to commit any extra time to extra features now or ever again in the future, I'm tired of this feedback loop.

[DreamTheater]

I fully disagree that the cape perks and slayer rerolls do not already constitute an incredibly massive change in the balance of 2009scape vs. authentic 2009, and while I could write a 5 page essay on why that I believe that to be the case (the cape benefits are essential to making the highest level content, gwd, feasible at all as just one big significant example). Instead of writing that essay, I'll make it clear that that IMO those deviations are vitally important to keeping the server active.

In addition, it should be noted that the revenants didn't even have the brawler glove drops in 2009, they were dropped when you killed another player and instead of them losing all their items, they would keep some but you would get brawlers instead, making fighting PVM for brawlers completely custom content as well, which I reiterate, is great.

The level 45 wilderness isn't arbitrary, it's about where the multi-combat line starts that runs across the whole wilderness right before the gate.

I don't think we will have a lot of PVP bullying considering the changes allow players to opt-out after paying a small but not insignificant amount of gold, and prayer level. In addition, part of the challenge will be to form alliances and work with other players to keep the PVP under control, which again won't be a big problem IMO since 90 percent of the players will be protected from PVP anyway. High level wildy is rarely visited other than stars anyway. People don't go there to farm under normal circumstances and even if you do you're probably miles away from another player.

Hunting revs is extremely difficult when your account is close to being maxed, which is unfortunate because it requires an alt to be effective at it. But allowing other (high slayer levle only) monsters to drop the gloves is a great solution IMO.

All in all, I fully support the changes as they are presented, and having monkfish in the wildy will really help those who are lucky enough to obtain fishing brawlers.

Thanks

[DreamTheater]

Community polls are not a good idea, the majority of players do not concisely understand game balance. Polls used to be a thing here, and we stopped using them exactly because it became a problem of the majority of players having 0 understanding of balance (as well as issues like poll rigging). Regardless, this discussion is immaterial, the MR is closed, the time is wasted, PvP will not be returning now or ever in the future. I hear requests for it to return for months, try to introduce it in a way that would make everyone happy, and then all I hear through the grapevine is people complaining about it. I will not offer to commit any extra time to extra features now or ever again in the future, I'm tired of this feedback loop.

Ceikry, in talking to the majority of players, vast majority of the ones I have been in discussion with have been very excited for these changes, it's just unfortunate that in life the dissenters tend to be much louder than the supporters for fear of alienating other players they are friends with.

[Spirit]

Community polls are not a good idea, the majority of players do not concisely understand game balance.

I will not offer to commit any extra time to extra features now or ever again in the future, I'm tired of this feedback loop.

I agree. OSRS is a disaster because of the polls. I think the wildy changes in that MR I read are great, balanced, and will make most people happy. There will always be exceptions. Hell, even if you only focus on authentic content there will be pushback. Some people were mad about having to do grand tree for the gnome flyer during the last update .

I understand if you are tired of the feedback loop for extra features, but I just wanted to chime in my voice in support.

[DreamTheater]

Community polls are not a good idea, the majority of players do not concisely understand game balance.

I will not offer to commit any extra time to extra features now or ever again in the future, I'm tired of this feedback loop.

I agree. OSRS is a disaster because of the polls. I think the wildy changes in that MR I read are great, balanced, and will make most people happy. There will always be exceptions. Hell, even if you only focus on authentic content there will be pushback. Some people were mad about having to do grand tree for the gnome flyer during the last update .

I understand if you are tired of the feedback loop for extra features, but I just wanted to chime in my voice in support.

Thank you for your feedback, I hope that now more supporters of this fascinating and exciting change to the game (even to non pvpers like myself) start posting more because I didn't realize there was any real threat of the MR being scrapped, after speaking to enough players excited I assumed it was smooth sailing.

[kirayaba]

Personally I don't really care about PvP, but it doesn't seem like Piscatoris/monkfish should have anything to do with this. If the current state of accessing them is a problem, wouldn't stat-locking the tunnel to Swan Song's requirements make more sense than adding a custom spot in the wilderness or Catherby or anywhere else for that matter?