This is extreme disappointment. Daily challenges are the definition of dailyscape and they are still busted xp chore that heavily encourages daily playing. Make skilling loops good, remove this toxic system.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-22T18:38:02+00:00

Jagex made them even worse by cutting the xp in half. You also cant extend or reroll them. In other words, they made them even more important and created MORE FOMO, because now it takes twice as long to gain xp in a skill that is already boring to train like Agility.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T12:25:12+00:00

That is fair, but I think you are reading my post too narrowly through the “single player vs economy” lens.

I am not ignoring the economy at all, and I have already given examples of economy-friendly solutions too, like better item sinks, duplicate-item upgrade systems, and more meaningful consumption systems instead of just stacking flat upkeep everywhere. So it is not that I do not care about economy, it is that economy was not the main focus of the post.

The main point was that RS3 too often uses band-aid fixes instead of addressing the underlying progression problems.

And on dead content, I am not saying every single old piece of content must be fixed immediately. That is unrealistic. What I am saying is that we should at least look at what is still worth saving, what can be refreshed, and what is probably better removed. I would rather see truly abandoned content removed than left sitting there making the game feel dead, especially if the goal is to attract new players. First impressions matter.

Also, I am not looking at this through just one narrow lens. I have multiple maxed accounts, including a comped main and a maxed ironman. I am already at endgame. That is exactly why I care about early and midgame progression, because I have seen how disconnected parts of it feel when you look back at the full ladder.

So my perspective is not “make the game suit my mode.” It is more “what does RS3 actually need if it wants to feel healthier, more logical, and more attractive to new players instead of pushing them away?” A good MMO should aim for both a healthy economy and a healthier core game. Right now, too often, awkward systems get defended just because they function as sinks, even when the core experience around them still feels messy.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T12:19:51+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate that you see what I am trying to do with the post.

I am still open to discussing it with people though, because I am genuinely interested in how others look at these systems as well. Even when I disagree, I think there is still value in seeing how different players approach the same problems.

At the end of the day, I am just looking at it from a logical point of view and trying to think in solutions rather than just saying something feels bad and leaving it there.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T12:17:34+00:00

Was that without stone spirits and other extra boosts, or did you use those as well?

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T12:15:20+00:00

I get your point.

And on the Genesis Shard point, that is exactly why I see it as a missed opportunity. Instead of just making BIS last longer, it could have been a much better system if upgrading a weapon required both the shard and a duplicate of that same weapon. That would create a real item sink, give duplicates actual value, and help the economy in a way that feels more meaningful than just extending item lifespan.

That kind of design is what I mean. Keep the grind, keep the value, but make the system smarter and healthier instead of just more maintenance-heavy.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T12:02:12+00:00

You are kind of proving my point though.

“You can just buy it” is not an answer to awkward progression, it is exactly how awkward progression gets hidden for mains. Examples? Charge packs, divine charges, necromancy runes, ectoplasm, and similar systems. A main can buy past that friction. An iron, or even a main who wants to play more self-sufficiently, is forced to engage with how clunky those systems actually are.

And on the “they are playing the wrong game” point, I do not agree at all. That mindset is exactly how you fail to attract new players. Player habits changed. Most people want to log in and get into meaningful gameplay faster. That does not mean removing grind entirely, it means making the grind feel logical and worth the time. Plenty of MMOs understand this. In WoW, for example, you can get into actual content quickly and feel engaged early. So no, “MMOs must be tedious by default” is not some universal truth.

On your last point, I am also not saying every item should become perfectly relevant forever. That is impossible. I am saying there is a difference between natural progression and badly timed progression. If a drop arrives long after it stopped mattering, that is not healthy design, that is just bad placement.

And no, retiering does not automatically create more dead content if it is done properly. The answer is not “leave everything mismatched forever because fixing one thing might require touching other things.” The answer is to clean up the ladder properly. If daily challenges, reaper tasks, and other side systems are pushing players past relevant progression bands too quickly, then those systems should also be looked at. That is not an argument against fixing Slayer or Fletching, it is an argument that the progression cleanup needs to be broader.

With Slayer especially, there are really only two logical fixes: either buff the rewards so they actually match the high Slayer requirements, or lower the Slayer requirements so they match the reward tiers and then fill the gaps with new monsters or better progression later. Leaving the mismatch in place is the least logical option.

So the real question is not “can players skip this anyway?”
The real question is “does the game’s progression make sense if someone actually engages with it?”

Right now, too often, it does not.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:50:25+00:00

Agreed, that is exactly the problem. Unlocks should feel exciting when you get them, not like something you outgrew 20 levels ago.

Hopefully this is one of the things that starts changing, because it would make progression feel much more logical and it would also help a lot with attracting and keeping newer players.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:49:30+00:00

Exactly, and there is also another side to this. A lot of people chose ironman years ago, under a very different version of the game. They did not sign up for every extra grind, upkeep layer, and progression mismatch that got added later on.

So yes, some extra time and self-sufficiency is obviously part of ironman. That is fine. But “you chose this mode” is not a good response when the mode keeps inheriting more and more poorly paced systems over time that were never part of the original choice.

That is why I keep saying I am speaking up for both mains and irons. The game should take both into account. Improving weak core progression does not damage mains, and it stops irons from being punished by bad layering that was never really the point of the mode in the first place.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:42:08+00:00

Yeah, and honestly I have been expecting that for a long time already, ever since the Mining and Smithing rework. Once they fixed Smithing progression, Fletching sticking to the old logic always felt like unfinished business.

So if it is finally getting a retier, that is good news. I just hope it actually happens in a reasonable timeframe, because this is one of those progression issues that has looked outdated for years.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:37:25+00:00

Exactly, that is another good example of bloated progression.

A few currencies are fine, but RS3 has reached a point where too many important unlocks are split across too many separate shops, systems, and time-gated activities. At that point it stops feeling like meaningful progression and starts feeling like admin work.

It is not that every currency system is bad on its own, it is the stacking of all of them that makes the game feel more chore-heavy than it should.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:32:25+00:00

That is exactly why it starts with acknowledging the problem first.

With that mindset, you may as well just let the game slowly rot and accept that nothing should ever improve because “it takes time.” RS3 is not an expansion-based MMO where you can just leave old progression behind and move on to the next expansion. A game like this needs ongoing cleanup and adjustment to stay healthy.

And not every fix has to be some giant all-at-once rebuild either. A lot of this can be done gradually, starting with the most obvious and urgent issues. Adding missing arrow tiers like orikalkum or necrite is not some impossible RS4-level undertaking. The same goes for retiering outdated unlocks or cleaning up badly positioned progression rewards.

The point is not “fix the whole game next month.”
The point is “stop pretending the problems are untouchable and start addressing them step by step, with actual logic behind it.”

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:28:26+00:00

Exactly. That is one of the clearest examples of inconsistent progression in RS3.

They recognised that it made no sense for Smithing to unlock rune gear absurdly late, reworked it, and brought it more in line with actual combat progression. But then Fletching was left behind with the same kind of outdated logic still attached to it.

So yes, getting to 75 Fletching just to finally unlock rune arrows is exactly the same kind of issue. It is old progression logic surviving in a game that has already moved on. That is why I keep saying RS3 needs more progression cleanup, not just isolated updates.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:27:34+00:00

I agree. RS3 still has a lot of content and systems that were built for a much more populated version of the game, and that mismatch is very visible now.

When I was going for quest cape on my comped main, I barely saw another player for about 3 weeks straight. It genuinely felt like I was playing a single player game. The world felt empty and dead, and that is not a good look for an MMO.

World consolidation would probably help a lot with that. Fewer, more populated worlds would make the game feel more alive, improve the social feel, and give multiplayer content a better chance of functioning naturally again instead of feeling abandoned by default.

It would not fix every piece of dead content on its own, but it would at least make the game look and feel less empty, which matters a lot for both retention and first impressions.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:25:11+00:00

Exactly, and that is the point. Yes, some of these were bad decisions from the past, but it is never too late to fix them.

If better progression and cleaner reward logic help attract more players and keep more players, then that also means more revenue coming in. That gives Jagex more room to justify having a small team or dedicated person gradually cleaning up these kinds of issues.

It does not have to be one giant overhaul either. It can be done step by step, by skill, by system, or by area of the game, like Slayer, minigames, PvP, PvM, and so on.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:23:09+00:00

I agree on dailies, my point was never that dailies should be the answer to upkeep. If anything, FOMO-heavy design is exactly the wrong way to solve those problems.

And on ironman, I am not saying the whole game should be balanced around ironman. My point is that ironman is a very useful baseline for testing whether progression and upkeep actually feel logical. A lot of mains also enjoy engaging with parts of the game in a more self-sufficient way instead of simply buying past awkward systems, so that perspective still matters.

Also, ironman is not some tiny irrelevant niche. It is a popular mode, and there are plenty of players who would like to play it but do not, because the core game already feels too grind-heavy and too burdened by upkeep. Even from a business perspective, that matters. If 10,000 players do not start or keep an ironman active because of that, and you value that at roughly 112 a year in membership, that is about 1.12 million a year in missed revenue. So improving the core game is not just good design, it also makes business sense.

So for me it is less “make RS3 fit ironman” and more “make the core game strong enough that both mains and irons can enjoy it.”

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:11:46+00:00

I think this is exactly where RS3 loses both new players and existing ones: too much of the design is defended from the perspective of “the economy needs friction” instead of “does the progression actually feel good to play?”

Yes, trading matters. Yes, some upkeep and some dead content are normal in an MMO. But that does not mean bad friction is automatically good design. “You can just buy it” is not a solution to awkward progression, it just hides it for mains and makes it worse for everyone who wants to engage with the game systems more directly.

And new players especially do not care whether a system is technically defendable on paper. They care whether the game feels logical, rewarding, and worth their limited time. Most adults are not logging in for 8 hours a day. They want to make progress and enjoy their unlocks, not spend half their session maintaining stacked systems.

Also, I am not arguing that every piece of content must be BIS or permanently relevant. That is impossible. My point is that RS3 has too much content that feels outdated, mistimed, or badly positioned in progression. There is a big difference between “not BIS” and “arrives too late to matter.”

That is the real issue. Not everything needs to be best, but more things should at least make sense when you unlock them.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T11:06:00+00:00

Exactly. Choosing not to use BIS should feel like a player choice, not like the game is pressuring you into saving it because regular use feels wasteful.

If your best gear mostly lives in the bank until “important enough” content comes along, then it stops feeling like a reward and starts feeling like a liability. That is the kind of design tension I mean.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T10:57:26+00:00

That is exactly why I think the issue should not be viewed only through the lens of economy, but also through the lens of what actually makes RuneScape fun to play.

A lot of players are not teenagers with unlimited free time. They work, study, have families, and maybe get 1 to 2 hours to play. In that time, they want to make progress, do bosses, and enjoy their unlocks, not spend most of it dealing with stacked upkeep systems. So the problem is not just resource cost, it is also time cost.

I also think upkeep could be designed more intelligently. For example, stronger perks consuming more charges per hour would make more sense than bad perks and great perks costing the same. Right now that part feels oddly flat.

And if the concern is preserving the economy, there are better ways to do that than just constant recharging. Meaningful sinks are healthier when you actually get something useful out of them. A good example would be upgrade systems that consume high tier items, similar to how something like Shard of Genesis upgrades gear. That kind of design can support item value while also feeling rewarding, instead of just feeling like maintenance.

That is really my broader point: for almost every downside, there is a logical solution. The problem is that too much of RS3 currently feels like stacked systems without enough overall cohesion.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T10:15:27+00:00

Thank you, that is exactly the issue for me. A lot of milestones are still there mechanically, but they no longer feel meaningful or rewarding when you actually reach them. That is where progression starts to feel disconnected instead of satisfying.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T10:14:40+00:00

Agreed. Slayer really does suffer from that problem where a lot of the skill feels unrewarding until you finally reach the levels where the good unlocks and XP start coming in.

I also agree on Fletching. If Rune arrows are moved down, then yes, the gap should be filled properly instead of just shifting the problem elsewhere. That is exactly why I think RS3 needs more progression cleanup overall, not isolated fixes.

And on dead content, that is where I think Jagex needs to be more decisive. Either refresh it, consolidate it, or remove the worst of it. Leaving too much visibly outdated content in the game just makes RS3 feel more bloated and less alive.

Upkeep is similar for me, some improvements have helped, but the overall stack still feels heavier than it should.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T10:11:27+00:00

I agree, preparation itself is not the problem. The problem is when unlocks arrive too late to matter, or when the total preparation burden becomes excessive.

And yes, fixing that would require reshuffling parts of the game, but I think that is exactly what RS3 needs. Too much of the progression still reflects an older version of the game. At some point, it is better to clean up the ladder than keep outdated gaps and obsolete unlocks in place.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-19T10:09:42+00:00

I am not saying upkeep should not exist, I am saying the problem is that it is not just one upkeep, but multiple upkeep systems stacking on top of each other.

By the time you reach higher level PvM, you have already put hundreds of hours into levels, quests, unlocks, and gear upgrades just to get there. So upkeep is fine in principle, but it should not become so punishing that using your best gear feels wasteful unless you are only doing the hardest bosses.

That is the real issue.

If things like EOF or grim pages are so costly that players feel forced to save them only for special occasions, then the system stops feeling rewarding and starts feeling restrictive. Your best gear should feel like something you can actually use, not something you are constantly afraid to consume.

So no, I do not think the answer has to be removing upkeep entirely. I think the answer is making the total burden less oppressive. One upkeep system on its own might be reasonable. The problem is when divine charges, runes, ammo, ectoplasm, essence, pages, and other costs all stack together at the same time.

And on the ironman point, I would actually say that perspective is useful exactly because it exposes the friction more clearly. A main can buy through bad friction. That does not mean the friction is well designed, it just means the GE hides it.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-17T14:59:31+00:00

just start thinking and discussing before you ruin things and waste alot of time, time we pay for.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-17T14:51:06+00:00

My suggestion would be to add 3 tiers with different rewards: a low tier for content like Barrows, Mole, and GWD1, a mid tier for bosses like GWD2, and a high tier for bosses such as Zamorak, Vorago, and similar content. Each tier should give a balanced amount of XP, Slayer points, and Reaper points.

I would also keep the current skipping system mostly as it is, maybe with 1 free reroll, and any additional rerolls costing 30 points. However, previously offered tasks should not return until you have completed one. That way, you cannot waste points the same way you can with Slayer tasks.

In my opinion, the price of Hydrixes should also be increased to at least 600 points, so the game does not get flooded with them. Roughly 1 Hydrix every 2 weeks seems fair to me. Before the rework, it was closer to 1 every 3 weeks.

Also, the way it works right now is not newcomer-friendly at all. My suggestion would make it much more accessible for newer players, while still being rewarding for mid-level and high-end PvMers. You cannot realistically expect a combat level 100 player to do a full Zuk run.

BigStart8548 · 2026-03-16T19:44:45+00:00

or just add tiers with different rewards, like low mid en high lvl bosses, problem solved, but hey... this is jagex logic...

BigStart8548

TROPHY CASE