separate F2P/P2P hiscores in the future?

[ixfd64]

One common sentiment of many players is that the RuneScape hiscores are unfair because members get more skills (thus a higher skill total) and many skills are easier to train on the members version. However, check out this J-mod reply on the FunOrb forum:

 

 

 

How can my f2p friends compete with us when half the game isn't even available to them? -Cantabilex33

 

One of our plans is to make sure that the free to play gamers get a complete game to enjoy. The members will get an expansion pack to the game, which will be a complete game with extra features. This way, each free to play gamer and each member will be able to compete in the free version of the game equally, the members will then get a separate highscore table for their members only version of the game.

 

 

 

For multiplayer games, our focus is not on giving members better units, for example, but a greater choice of units with a greater variation in game play. Members will get more choices in how they play the game, but these wont necessarily translate as better options. Mod_Korpz

 

 

 

Does anyone think the same could happen to RS in the future?

[UserOnRS]

Hmm, nice find but I doubt it to be honest. :( They said they would make a seperate highscores table for RSC but they never did. FunOrb is seperate to RS too, I don't think we'll see announcements such as "RuneScape on Facebook" to be honest as the mods are different who run the sites.

 

 

 

Also, how FunOrb works is different to RuneScape - members will be included in the FunOrb F2p table by the sound of it, it won't work on RS because of how F2P skills are a lot easier for members and it would take a lot to change that. They have even added benefits for skilling in P2P - varrock armour and all fired up stuff for example.

[Hippodo]

And you get problems with when somebody is f2p. What if you've been a member, but currently f2p, and you decide to get a skill up to a high level, what hiscore should you be in, and how will they check? If Jagex looks at your status, you could get a 99 in members, then go f2p and be nr.1 in the f2p hiscores :?.

[Vuvuzela]

They could probably make it so the f2p high scores tables doesn't count member skills towards the ranks.

[sees_all1]

I wouldn't object to a "completely f2p" high-score table, I can imagine a time when the minimum total level of a player to be on the top 2 million is 1494, thus bumping of some of our favorite F2P heroes :P.

 

That said, I won't agonize without it. Never had a table like that, don't need a table like that, but it would be a nice, and interesting feature.

[Smackapotato]

And you get problems with when somebody is f2p. What if you've been a member, but currently f2p, and you decide to get a skill up to a high level, what hiscore should you be in, and how will they check? If Jagex looks at your status, you could get a 99 in members, then go f2p and be nr.1 in the f2p hiscores :?.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe then as soon as you become a member, you stay on the member's high score tables, regardless of your current status. That would actually be great, cause then you can't cheat for the top f2p charts.

 

 

 

I would absolutely love to see that change implemented.

[Smackapotato]

Sorry, computer bug-up.

[caldius]

And you get problems with when somebody is f2p. What if you've been a member, but currently f2p, and you decide to get a skill up to a high level, what hiscore should you be in, and how will they check? If Jagex looks at your status, you could get a 99 in members, then go f2p and be nr.1 in the f2p hiscores :?.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe then as soon as you become a member, you stay on the member's high score tables, regardless of your current status. That would actually be great, cause then you can't cheat for the top f2p charts.

 

 

 

I would absolutely love to see that change implemented.

 

 

 

If this was taken into consideration then its the only way this would work.

[Lord_Omar_Iv]

i dont think theyll ever have a separate f2p high scores. they wouldnt do a separate highscores for rsc (and most of rsc after the rs2 release was p2p) so i cant imagine them doing a separate high scores for people who play for free

[Me_Hate_Libs]

Yeah, would be easy to just do it up so it only takes into account f2p available skills, kinda like what your f2p cb level is when they minus summoning.

[NJE03]

And you get problems with when somebody is f2p. What if you've been a member, but currently f2p, and you decide to get a skill up to a high level, what hiscore should you be in, and how will they check? If Jagex looks at your status, you could get a 99 in members, then go f2p and be nr.1 in the f2p hiscores :?.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe then as soon as you become a member, you stay on the member's high score tables, regardless of your current status. That would actually be great, cause then you can't cheat for the top f2p charts.

 

 

 

I would absolutely love to see that change implemented.

Indeed, as soon as someone becomes a members, they are then a member/ex-member from that point on and would be on the members highscore listing. I to would love to see this feature implemented for the sake of those lower leveled f2p players. This would create a better sense of competition on the highscores where all players would have an equally fair chance to get high ranked.

 

 

 

While it may not happen, you never know. After all, f2p is not a demo. ;)

[Atroxide]

The reason there isn't 2 separate high scores is to make f2p get members.

 

 

 

When ever a f2p'er realizes he is in the top 100 of f2p, most likely he won't get members just to keep that high-score. Making a table for f2p just lets them realize that even faster.

[Lordjake]

The reason there isn't 2 separate high scores is to make f2p get members.

 

 

 

When ever a f2p'er realizes he is in the top 100 of f2p, most likely he won't get members just to keep that high-score. Making a table for f2p just lets them realize that even faster.

 

if they've gotten the stats to even get close to the top 100 (or 200, or 300), it's likely that they've already decided to stay as a f2per - not to say there haven't been f2pers from the top f2p list to go p2p...

 

 

 

i dont really care if f2p gets an official highscore list or not, i'm happy with the one maintained here on tipit.

[Me_Hate_Libs]

The reason there isn't 2 separate high scores is to make f2p get members.

 

 

 

When ever a f2p'er realizes he is in the top 100 of f2p, most likely he won't get members just to keep that high-score. Making a table for f2p just lets them realize that even faster.

 

 

 

I think this is another example of someone assuming that Jagex is all about getting to people to sign up for members. Yeah, some stuff is, but not all of it.

 

 

 

I mean, if lightning strikes a tree in front of your house/apartment you'd think to yourself, "Man Jagex is really trying to get me to sign up for members, huh?"

[NJE03]

The reason there isn't 2 separate high scores is to make f2p get members.

 

 

 

When ever a f2p'er realizes he is in the top 100 of f2p, most likely he won't get members just to keep that high-score. Making a table for f2p just lets them realize that even faster.

I doubt that highscores is a very big factor in the choice to get members. I would imagine it is something more along the lines of increased content that comes with membership.

[Me_Hate_Libs]

The reason there isn't 2 separate high scores is to make f2p get members.

 

 

 

When ever a f2p'er realizes he is in the top 100 of f2p, most likely he won't get members just to keep that high-score. Making a table for f2p just lets them realize that even faster.

I doubt that highscores is a very big factor in the choice to get members, I would imagine it is something more along the lines of increased content that comes with membership.

 

 

 

You completely ignored my joke. Therefore, you must die! :x

[NJE03]

The reason there isn't 2 separate high scores is to make f2p get members.

 

 

 

When ever a f2p'er realizes he is in the top 100 of f2p, most likely he won't get members just to keep that high-score. Making a table for f2p just lets them realize that even faster.

I doubt that highscores is a very big factor in the choice to get members, I would imagine it is something more along the lines of increased content that comes with membership.

 

 

 

You completely ignored my joke. Therefore, you must die! :x

:o

 

 

 

*looks for joke*

[Me_Hate_Libs]

The reason there isn't 2 separate high scores is to make f2p get members.

 

 

 

When ever a f2p'er realizes he is in the top 100 of f2p, most likely he won't get members just to keep that high-score. Making a table for f2p just lets them realize that even faster.

I doubt that highscores is a very big factor in the choice to get members, I would imagine it is something more along the lines of increased content that comes with membership.

 

 

 

You completely ignored my joke. Therefore, you must die! :x

:o

 

 

 

*looks for joke*

 

 

 

My mom says I'm funny... :ugeek:

 

 

 

But anyway, it really wouldn't be a bad idea and not even the slightest bit difficult if they chose to do it. You could have a members rank and f2p rank. And if you're f2p, you'd just have the one rank.

[Pinkbullet3]

1. I totally support the idea of a separate F2P hiscores list. (The top 250 F2P list is already a great list, but we suspect there are still high total leveled F2Pers out there who we haven't seen yet, so... it'd be great if we could see a complete list of the F2Pers instead of having to spot them.)

 

 

 

2. If a F2Per steps foot into a P2P world, he/she should be automatically transferred to the P2P hiscores list, so he/she can't train their F2P skills to a high level in P2P and still seem like they're 100% F2P.

 

 

 

[Dork]

2. If a F2Per steps foot into a P2P world, he/she should be automatically transferred to the P2P hiscores list, so he/she can't train their F2P skills to a high level in P2P and still seem like they're 100% F2P.

 

 

 

 

But then what if someone only gets members for a month? The exact same argument would apply. They would never have a chance at being at the top of either high score list. Honestly, creating a f2p highscore list would just create too many problems for Jagex to even really bother with it.

[Pinkbullet3]

2. If a F2Per steps foot into a P2P world, he/she should be automatically transferred to the P2P hiscores list, so he/she can't train their F2P skills to a high level in P2P and still seem like they're 100% F2P.

 

 

 

 

But then what if someone only gets members for a month? The exact same argument would apply. They would never have a chance at being at the top of either high score list. Honestly, creating a f2p highscore list would just create too many problems for Jagex to even really bother with it.

 

I believe that if they wanted to be at the top of a list (let's say F2P), they would've considered becoming P2P very carefully. Anyone with enough common sense won't start crying once they step foot into a P2P world only to realize that they're not at the top of the F2P list anymore. They'll just have to work their way up the P2P ladder.

[Dork]

2. If a F2Per steps foot into a P2P world, he/she should be automatically transferred to the P2P hiscores list, so he/she can't train their F2P skills to a high level in P2P and still seem like they're 100% F2P.

 

 

 

 

But then what if someone only gets members for a month? The exact same argument would apply. They would never have a chance at being at the top of either high score list. Honestly, creating a f2p highscore list would just create too many problems for Jagex to even really bother with it.

 

I believe that if they wanted to be at the top of a list (let's say F2P), they would've considered becoming P2P very carefully. Anyone with enough common sense won't start crying once they step foot into a P2P world only to realize that they're not at the top of the F2P list anymore. They'll just have to work their way up the P2P ladder.

 

Which is, again, another reason for Jagex not to do it. I highly doubt they'll want people staying f2p solely to work towards the top of the f2p high score list.

[Balazeal]

2. If a F2Per steps foot into a P2P world, he/she should be automatically transferred to the P2P hiscores list, so he/she can't train their F2P skills to a high level in P2P and still seem like they're 100% F2P.

 

 

 

 

But then what if someone only gets members for a month? The exact same argument would apply. They would never have a chance at being at the top of either high score list. Honestly, creating a f2p highscore list would just create too many problems for Jagex to even really bother with it.

 

I believe that if they wanted to be at the top of a list (let's say F2P), they would've considered becoming P2P very carefully. Anyone with enough common sense won't start crying once they step foot into a P2P world only to realize that they're not at the top of the F2P list anymore. They'll just have to work their way up the P2P

 

ladder.

 

That's true though, making a F2P highscore list might actually make P2P a little bit less appealing for some. Personally, I think it's fine how it is.

[NJE03]

2. If a F2Per steps foot into a P2P world, he/she should be automatically transferred to the P2P hiscores list, so he/she can't train their F2P skills to a high level in P2P and still seem like they're 100% F2P.

 

 

 

 

But then what if someone only gets members for a month? The exact same argument would apply. They would never have a chance at being at the top of either high score list. Honestly, creating a f2p highscore list would just create too many problems for Jagex to even really bother with it.

 

I believe that if they wanted to be at the top of a list (let's say F2P), they would've considered becoming P2P very carefully. Anyone with enough common sense won't start crying once they step foot into a P2P world only to realize that they're not at the top of the F2P list anymore. They'll just have to work their way up the P2P

 

ladder.

 

That's true though, making a F2P highscore list might actually make P2P a little bit less appealing for some. Personally, I think it's fine how it is.

Once again, I doubt it would affect anyone's decision to obtain membership. It is fine for members, that is very true. F2P'ers get the short end of the stick in this instance. An example of this is a F2P player who has played for years and happens to have maxed skills, is ranked at over 250k overall.

[Guest]

Instead of ranking somebody on f2p/p2p status (I wouldn't mind) I think it would be way better to rank people next to total level, also to total xp which doesn't discriminate between p2p/f2p. Yeh I know p2p can get more xp/h, but that is because they pay.....

 

 

 

There is already a very well kept bye top 250 f2p highscore list on runehead (with a topic here), this is enough for me. Jagex promises too much for f2p, but in the meanwhile I don't see anything happening yet. I don't care if they don't give us updates... Just don't give us false hope like you did with the skillcapes :thumbdown: