Total level is a bad requirement; it should be total experience, much like it is for the forums. After all, a p2per with all skills in the low 40s can log into a 1000+ world, whereas a maxed f2p skiller can't.

 

^ I would rather this

I find that a 1600 total P2P world seems most attractive out of the possible choices. 1500 if nothing else. If they plan on factoring in p2p players into the equation still, however, I think a higher-count F2p world would be in order as well.

Obviously I am p2p. However, my first 99 will be mining done on free worlds under f2p conditions..... (personal goal). I have my favourite little mine near Varrock and then when I need to smith my bars, I tend to hop onto the f2p 1000+ world for my smithing and alching while still staying in Varrock.

 

Why? Because it's empty, it doesn't lag the way the free high-pop worlds that I chose for fast-spawning rocks do, and few people say anything that takes away from the monotonous clicking of alching.

 

And I feel totally at home as I am a nooby mem with no skill cape :( The fact I was 1000+ f2p before going p2p is little consolation.

 

I would love to see the mems skill total worlds raised to an equivalent level, 1600+, as has been suggested before in the thread. If the mems worlds could be as quiet and non-laggy as the free world, it would be a boon! :)

 

Please don't accuse me of elitism. I am the first to smith a steel axe for a "noob" begging for money. I have been known to drop what I'm doing and lead a new player to their desired destination. I always try to answer a question with accurate and helpful information. But just sometimes, for some activities, I want the peace and quiet of a world without distraction.

Almost all the people on 1000+ freeplay worlds are members out of membership. How do you expect a freeplayer to go there and brag to people who's total levels are almost always superior?

 

I'm currently out of membership and decided to chop some yews. The yews near GE were too crowded in most worlds, so I tried using the 1000+ worlds, hoping it would filter out all the low level freeplay skillers. Guess what, it makes absolutely no difference. I was far from being the only one having that idea: the yews were even more crowded by "retired" members. If the purpose of 1000+ worlds was to give people with high levels the space they need to train their skills more efficiently, then it failed miserably.

 

Now in what regards 1000+ member worlds, when was the last time you've seen a member struggle to hit level 1000 total? Most members start out with their freeplay skills fairly leveled, getting to that total level is doable in a few days, it's just pointless to filter out all those who haven't been on members for more than a week.

 

About the idea of having 1600+ member worlds, now that I can agree with. We all know skills get much harder to train after mid-high levels like 70. It would maybe be good to give more space to high levels, in order to reduce the increasing difficulty, and also for lower leveled players to not get disturbed by them.

 

I think the easiest solution is to put an arbitrary minimum level in each skill, say 50, and then a total. 1000 is fine for F2P, 1600 is fine for P2P, but don't mix and match the different levels.

 

 

 

 

Theres only one problem with this. What about the people who have an extremly high total (in the 2000's) but 1 very low level. Say they dont do summoning and are level 1 in that skill, that takes out their ability to get into a world just because they choose not to do that one skill by personal preferance, and will still have a much higher total than a good portion of the people in that world. I have a few friends that refuse to do summoning. They feel that it makes the game too easy and decided they wouldnt do it, unless they max out their accounts and have nothing left to do. These people would be excluded from the high total level worlds, because of that?

 

I think the easiest solution is to put an arbitrary minimum level in each skill, say 50, and then a total. 1000 is fine for F2P, 1600 is fine for P2P, but don't mix and match the different levels.

 

 

 

 

Theres only one problem with this. What about the people who have an extremly high total (in the 2000's) but 1 very low level. Say they dont do summoning and are level 1 in that skill, that takes out their ability to get into a world just because they choose not to do that one skill by personal preferance, and will still have a much higher total than a good portion of the people in that world. I have a few friends that refuse to do summoning. They feel that it makes the game too easy and decided they wouldnt do it, unless they max out their accounts and have nothing left to do. These people would be excluded from the high total level worlds, because of that?

 

Might as well remove quest requirements then... Some people including myself love questing, but even though they know how to solve them, they can't just because they don't like training skills. It's a personal preference. Following your logic, those kids of requirements should also be removed then.

 

I do agree with the idea of having precise skill requirements to enter those worlds, it would filter out people who just rush the fastest skills to get to the same worlds as those who've worked harder for it.

I didn't even know there were 1000+ worlds... I guess it's because even that's pretty low for P2P, so even if I did log into one, I wouldn't see a difference.. Maybe if there's 1500+~ worlds, I might see a difference in attitudes.

 

I think it's a good idea, if they change it a bit. I'd love to finally have a better community in Runescape. Well, not that much better... We need IQ 100+ worlds.

Keep in mind that most of the seemingly "dumb" players only ACT this way, and are not like that in real life. Therefore, IQ 100+ worlds are utter garbage.

 

They should have "Ranked" worlds, where you can only enter those worlds if you have ALL your skills ranked. Of course, there would be a F2P and P2P version.

Doesn't solve the problem of F2P skillers.

 

Xp requirements are better, in my opinion.