#MegaThread Chivalry Solutions + "Rivalry" Prayer (Weaker Chivalry) + Prayer Balancing

[fluid fjord]

[Chivalry rework] A Different Approach...

[tall sinew]

I think anything that isn't "we're removing Chivalry, here's a new prayer that comes from a different source and will have the same stats as the previously proposed Chivalry changes" is a waste of time

changing Chivalry to not have def reqs is just never gonna pass, and there's no point in adding another prayer that will do basically the same thing as chivalry but with different requirements, better to just remove chivalry at that point

[fluid fjord]

I see what you mean and initially I was about to say "yeah that's a good optional approach"
But when I think more deeply about it is understand that this can be awkward in some ways for accounts that currently have Chivalry as their best prayer and just losing that.
I also think such a change would require a poll in itself to pass on that question too.
Thirdly, I think it goes against the spirit of OSRS to stay faithful to legacy content and build on it/with it or around it and being careful when changing things.

So I hope you can see how this approach could feel better for current players, less confusing and even offer additional progression paths and choices for new and experienced players 🙂

[tall sinew]

i think the numbers of players (if any) who have chivalry as their best prayer and are somehow unable to get 10 more prayer levels, or are incapable of doing whatever unlocks the replacement, is very low

[fluid fjord]

That doesn't justify screwing them over 😛 Could even be some strange super niche account build that is locked to like 60-65 prayer and 66 def or something for some reason. I wouldn't want that weird guy with that acc to get screwed over either 😛

[tall sinew]

yeah ideally the source of the new prayer wouldn't have any requirements that prevent people who were able to get chivalry from unlocking the new prayer

plus, the new prayer is a buff anyways

[fluid fjord]

Please read the full post suggestion.
Is it not clear in the post that Chivalry would be an outright upgrade to it, so those who have unlocked Chivalry would never have any use of these torn prayer scrolls because it's a small downgrade of Chivalry which Chivalry overrides when unlocked?

Or should I rephrase post to make it more clear somehow?

Wait I may have misread what you meant

[tall sinew]

i'm not referring to what you proposed for the new prayer to be clear, I'm referring to jagex's official proposal for chivalry changes which i would say overall are a buff to the prayer

[fluid fjord]

Damn it's confusing that there's no name for the "new reworked chivalry" and the differentiation I call "unnamed new tier 4 prayer"

[fluid fjord]

Oh yeah, indeed, indeed, yeah, makes it have actual use-space 🙂

[fluid fjord]

So yeah, it should indeed stay unlocked for those who have the current Chivalry unlocked

[tall sinew]

I don't think I'd even have any issue with just auto unlocking it for those who already have Chivalry

[fluid fjord]

That's what I'm saying, that's the only proposal here

The optional way to unlock with scrolls are only for those earlier in game progression or lower than 66 def

[tall sinew]

I just don't think we need to have chivalry and slightly different chivalry existing at the same time

[fluid fjord]

Do you think the same about Eagle Eye (tier 3 prayer) and Mystic Might (Tier 4 prayer)?

Because I am proposing it would work exactly like those

To be clear

[tall sinew]

eagle eye is a ranged prayer, mystic might is a magic prayer, and they're both t3 prayers

so i'm not sure what you're saying

[fluid fjord]

And Chivalry is currently t4.75 prayer

I'm saying that there could be a "Divalry" prayer that'd be melee tier 4

But when unlocking Chivalry with King's Ransom, it gets upgraded to Chivalry

That is what I proposed in the post, I hope this is clear

[tall sinew]

i get that, i just think it's not necessary and I would argue it's a downgrade given the drain rate of chivalry

[fluid fjord]

You are not understanding if you think the drain rate would be different

The current chivalry would be reworked as well, just like in blog post

[tall sinew]

i dont think you suggested any changes to chivalry besides a +2 to 3% defense increase

[fluid fjord]

should I specify "stats & drainrate" here?

[tall sinew]

not gonna lie

i didnt read any of the bolded text at all

[fluid fjord]

Well that explains the confusion xD

Should I not bold it? I thought this would be the most readable way to format the text :S

[tall sinew]

well anyways maybe i dont understand then

changing chivalry's stats to match the new t4 prayers would mean removing the +% defense and allowing steel skin to be used with it at the same time

but then you suggest later to buff the defence by 2 to 3%

[fluid fjord]

Correction: The new tier 4 prayers have an innate 5% defence (then steel skin is +15% with that)

Chivalry would then have an innate 7-8% defence, yes, totalling 22-23% while Piety is at 25%

[tall sinew]

gotcha

i forgot they were suggested to have +5% defense, thought you were just meant to use steel skin along with them if you wanted defense

[fluid fjord]

Now that I think about it, it could actually match the defence bonus of Piety at 25%.
Chivalry would look a lot cleaner with 10% + steel skin rather than 7% or 8% + steel skin, and it does kinda make sense for the knight prayers to have the max prayer def boost when they're unlocked through King's Ransom and the knight waves

Or no, now that I think about it more, it is already proposed in a good niche because of lower drainrate than piety so we should leave Piety with all the BIS boosts

On third thought; I just realized drain rate is on par with Piety when paired with Steel Skin, therefore it could indeed be balanced to have it be +10% for the innate defence bonus

[tall sinew]

hmm

you just gave me an idea

what if instead of having a t4 and t4.75 melee prayer

turn chivalry into a steel skin buff, +20% defense instead of steel skin's +15%

and then the t4 melee prayer comes from elsewhere

[fluid fjord]

That's a really cool idea

But darn, it wouldn't work tho in practice I'm afraid

[tall sinew]

my only immediately concern is that it might push them a bit too close to the t5 prayers given they're already a bit too close, mainly mystic vigour and augury's 1% magic dmg difference being irrelevant in many cases

[fluid fjord]

Because it comes down to the same issues I responded to in the beginning with removal of people's current best offensive prayer etc

[tall sinew]

i just think that's a non-issue because they'll be coming out ahead in the end, they'll just have to spend some time unlocking the new t4 melee prayer

[fluid fjord]

oh yeah well no they'd be matching in drainrate with rigour and augury at that point with steel skin so in that case it's a fair offensive gap (tho ofc magic gaps are weird yes)

[fluid fjord]

Hmm, well, that is a fair point.

I think that design approach is quite an interesting one too and can be put up aside to this post so both options should be considered by Jagex

[tall sinew]

yeah plus the t5 prayers are still more dps anyways so the t4 prayers + 20% def chivalry would still always be worse, but i'm just thinking that it's possible jagex wouldn't want to lessen the gap between t4 and t5 even if 5% def isnt too significant

[tall sinew]

yeah i'll make a suggestion post for it later

[fluid fjord]

Oh right yeah there is that, I see what you mean.
It does make the progression a bit more confusing and lessens gap a bit, so I'd vote for my approach all things considered but it's definitely an interesting one for consideration

[fluid fjord]

Chivalry Rework and the Addition of Rivalry (New Tier 4 Melee Prayer)

[tall sinew]

https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1312298556295614534

[fluid fjord]

Keep Chivalry Reqs. as is and Introduce Rivalry (New Tier 4 Melee Prayer)

Keep Chivalry Reqs. as is and Introduce the "Rivalry" Prayer (A Weaker Chivalry)

Keep Chivalry Reqs. as is and Introduce "Rivalry" Prayer (A Weaker Chivalry)

The Solution: Keep Chivalry Reqs. as is and Introduce "Rivalry" Prayer (A Weaker Chivalry)

[sharp radish]

Swimz changed the post title:

[ebon lance]

what would the icon look like?

the name rivalry makes me think of the rivaly between the royal titans, so maybe crossed fire/ice giant swords

[vestal steppe]

Isn’t this literally almost exactly the same thing I proposed already

https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1305875483673497650

[fluid fjord]

It was indeed inspired by your last comment there, so credits to you for the idea of this kind of approach. I then built further on that idea and this proposal is now a whole balanced proposal that includes several new aspects as you can see🙏👌

[fluid fjord]

Would you care to elaborate on why you downvoted the suggestion?
I haven't seen anyone give any feedback on why it's not a good proposal

I also PM'ed the other guy who downvoted it ( @lunar sleet or @kind arrow ?) asking about feedback for why they think it's not a good idea, but haven't received a response.

[lunar sleet]

cause I don't like it

don't pm me

[fluid fjord]

That's a great idea, perhaps two "half" swords that are essentially the Chivalry icon's sword cut into two (hence conflict, hence rivalry, hence dual bosses)

IT ALL MAKES PERFECT SENSE, this is beautiful

[tardy plover]

Stop PMing people over this dead horse. We downvoted it because we think it's a bad idea and your attempts to dress it up in different manners do not make it any more appealing.

[fluid fjord]

It's per definition not a dead horse as Jagex is currently going through feedback and will discuss it further any day now, probably this week or the next... (see screenshot below)

Okay, you think it's a bad idea, but I would appreciate if you could elaborate on why you think it's a bad idea, any descriptive words could prove very constructive

[vestal steppe]

I think it’s a “dead horse” based on the expression “beating a dead horse” and the fact that it’s failed poll multiple times already

I think this is a decent implementation of something that shouldn’t be repolled because it has failed multiple times

Also nobody owes you an explanation as to why they disagree with your idea

[fluid fjord]

But even if similar ideas have failed already, Jagex is still looking into it after it didn't pass 4.4% off last week (with a bad unlock change and implementation many disagree with, so I think it's fair to assume a better implementation and no changes to legacy quests and exp rewards etc. which people had issues with would be very likely to pass)

[fluid fjord]

Yeah I mean it may not need to be polled in this implementation given the current context, it would make sense as integrity change now especially since the other two tier 4 prayers passed

[fluid fjord]

I know, I respect their right to not say it, I was only asking kindly for it. 🙂

[tardy plover]

Kindly would be without pings and DMs.

[fluid fjord]

You can "Unfollow" the thread and you won't have any pings 🙂

[vestal steppe]

Actually untrue because you reply with pings to literally every message

[fluid fjord]

As you can see, I did not use the "reply" feature on his message there for obvious reasons. 🙂

[vestal steppe]

And yet you literally pinged me

[fluid fjord]

Well yes, that is the default way I respond to people in general so they see the message.

I understand now that you don't want me to use reply to your messages, so I won't do that 🙂

[ebon lance]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1307120193176211507/1312780346541998120/Untitled179_20241201145937.png?ex=674dbd78&is=674c6bf8&hm=185eb7d2629ec58b546d646bdc7cee6b654e96b86cbb1557cb50b8728494b38f& alright i tried to cook something together lol

[fluid fjord]

My girlfriend also cooked up something:
*Edit: We could adjust the purple background to be a bit darker etc., but the concept should be quite clear here). *

**Description: No components were added, just changed from the Chivalry icon **
We 'cut' the large sword in the middle in two halves and gave them the fire and ice colors. The split swords represent 'Rivalry', two halves of one whole being in conflict. This is fitting with it having a lower defence boost than Chivalry, since 'Rivalry' is in the state of conflict it lacks the balance that Chivalry has of the big sword in the middle

[ebon lance]

i like it, fits the current theme of chivalry

[remote terrace]

Nice

[slim valley]

Solid

[fluid fjord]

That proposal could also work with this 'Rivalry' prayer 🙂

[fluid fjord]

Chivalry Solution: Leave Unlock Reqs. as is and Introduce "Rivalry" Prayer (A Weaker Chivalry)

[thick acorn]

This is completely irrelevant to the overall point of the thread but you can reply to people without pinging them. See attached image. Click the "on" so it turns to "off". I've only ever had one person get angry over this before but that's why I know lol.

https://i.imgur.com/aNLX2x7.png

[fluid fjord]

Oh darn, that's a neat little feature right there! Thank you, good sir, I can then continue to always organize my responses with "reply" even when they don't want pings 😄 🙏

[thick acorn]

Exactly, I'm the same so figured you'd like to know haha

[sacred zinc]

that tweet saying they'll discuss chivalry again "in the near future" could be this week or next no?

[fluid fjord]

Yeah, I assume they mean to figure out Chivalry in these weeks kinda asap to get it ready to roll out the solution with the Royal Titans which will probably launch January or February(?)

[weak stone]

Great work

[fluid fjord]

Bump + Plea to Jagex:
Please see all the proposed solutions from the community for Chivalry going forward that have been discussed since the Chivalry Rework proposed in the Royal Titans poll failed (by 4.4%) in the #1022203837265756231 channel:
https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1312269466369003570 (this current thread)
https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1306794223294484541
https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1305875483673497650
https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1312298556295614534
https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1317752564204179456 (This is a very elegant suggestion)
Please let me know if I missed any viable options and I'll add them to this list.
Jagex, please go through and consider these options against one another and if they are all good options, perhaps poll them all against each other as alternatives then implement the one that wins with highest amount of votes?
*Another image of the **'Rivalry' *prayer concept art for visibility:

[fluid fjord]

Bump + added another proposal link

[tame marten]

• Copy-Pasta from highest voted suggestion regarding prayers in another jagex-moderated feedback discord almost a year ago. Keep in mind this is a copy-pasta meant for an additional take regarding the topic of this post; therefore, use it as just that, information to inform the best path forward regarding these potential new prayers in the post, rather than necessarily being for "Chivalry" per se, as this copy-pasta was suggested long before the recent Chivalry polling, so keep that in mind each time you read the forbidden word; chivalry:

--
20%/20%/10% Chivalry, why it would be a win-win-win-win-win-win scenario (i'll explain) and pass a poll.

First point to make note of:
It doesn't affect any metas, pvp or pvm, and only 'helps' each of the current and future cohorts who use it (irons included who are in the transitory phase to piety). 20/20/10 also makes logical progression sense, being only 10 levels lower than piety, but 25+ levels higher than the 15% standards that everyone has always been able to use.

Second, allow me to frame this suggestion in the proper context for everyone who could possibly be impacted and why it would benefit them, such that there shouldn't be anyone voting against it (in good faith), and how Jagex themselves would receive a benefit for making it a legitimate offering.

Bear with me, it is too long for 1 post 👀 so I will continue it in the comments of this post below. ⤵️

Each of the cohorts who would be affected by this change to Chivalry will be listed below (others not directly listed would likely fall into 1 of these categories):

...continued (part 1/2):

• Irons/Casual first-account Mains in transition who already use Chivalry in its current state: 20/20/10 Chivalry means they receive a minor boost to their current playstyle & would likely only be doing content like slayer where they can use 100% protection prays to counter the def % loss relative to the current state of Chiv.

• Meds(they have piety): 20/20/10 Chivalry means hitting better on their PvP opponents than currently since their opponents can't use the 15% steel skin pray in addition to the 10% from Chivalry.

• Zerks: 20/20/10 Chivalry means they still have to increase combat from prayer lvls to achieve the "punch-up" capacity that Chivalry offers with no def req, but it comes at the additional tradeoff of being slightly squishier than they have historically been; since they now have only 10% def from Chiv instead of 15% from steel skin.

• Pures: 20/20/10 Chivalry means very similar to what it means for zerks in "punch-up" capacity but at less of an "absolute" cost on them compared to a zerk since whether its 15% or 10% def-boost from prayer, its still "% of level 1 def" which in calculations means effectively nothing changes, since pures don't benefit even from steel skin at 15%.

• Mains: 20/20/10 Chivalry for mains means that the targets they face in PvP (who use Chiv) are now squishier than previously (if assuming deep wild) and otherwise doesn't affect them as they already personally use piety/already are used to fighting others using the stronger prayer of Piety.

• Jagex (as a company): 20/20/10 Chivalry means an unobtrusive, real-time, in-game, non-meta affecting tangible example with minimal dev-time for data collection and observation, that would provide solid 1:1 feedback for what the effects of adding Higher-Tier 90+ prayers in the future (or alignments) which focus more on that "punch-up" capacity whilst having the "cost" of lower def % or something of similar effect.

...continued (part 2/2):

Lastly, for context, allow me to layout why 20/20/10 Chivalry is not actually overpowered, nor is it an unreasonable offering:

-Steel Skin = Prayer lvl 28 req
-Ultimate Str = Prayer lvl 31 req
-Incredible Reflexes = Prayer lvl 34 req
(all of these^ are 15% prayers)
|
|
|
25+ prayer levels of gap
|
|
|
-Chivalry = Prayer lvl 60 req
|
10 prayer lvls of gap
|
-Piety = Prayer lvl 70 req

Chivalry (20/20/10) is 26-32 prayer levels more of a requirement over the 15% prayers just to achieve 5% more att, 5% more str, & 5% LESS defense, than current status quo.

Piety is only 10 prayer levels more of a requirement over the proposed 20/20/10 Chivalry whilst boasting 3% more str & 15% more def % than 20/20/10 Chiv.

Let's run a few calc's:
From Ultimate Str (current best non-def req melee pray) to 20/20/10 Chiv, that is:
5.8 Prayer levels per 1% str bonus increase.
Compared to:
From 20/20/10 Chiv to Piety, that is:
3.33 Prayer levels per 1% str bonus increase.
TL;DR: This means that piety not only retains its normal meta location, but also retains a 'cheaper cost' in prayer levels per % str bonus, relatively, just as it did before.

If we really want to get fun here, you could additionally lower the prayer drain on 20/20/10 Chiv (being an inferior prayer to piety & all) and have it actually become a net-positive to piety-users as well, if they ever encounter some niche utility for it, rather than something they would otherwise not care about (mostly for meds/mains who are used to piety, choosing 20/20/10 Chiv with reduced pray drain to extend their trip or get 1 more kc; seeing as both currently drain 1 point every 1.5 seconds).

In terms of a natural stepping-stone approach and it's corresponding level requirements, 20/20/10 Chiv is quite reasonable and fair (since doing away with the def-req of the quest; thus the prayer being 'defensively' affected, accordingly).

[fluid fjord]

A lot of interesting info here, sure, appreciate the addition. Though I don't see any way to use it or how to integrate it into the current proposals, especially considering the tier 4 melee prayer should obviously need to be useable in the same manner as Eagle eye/Deadeye with Steel skin in order to be usable together without big clunkiness.

Actually, on second thought, perhaps this could be a way to integrate it(?):

Rivalry option 1 (A):
20%/20%/-5% (20%/20%/10% with steel skin)
Rivalry option 2 (B):
20%/20%/0% (20%/20%/15% with steel skin)

Chivalry option 1 (C):
20%/20%/0% (20%/20%/15% with steel skin)
Chivalry option 2 (D):
20%/20%/5% (20%/20%/20% with steel skin)

Several different ways of combining these options could be viable to explore. (A+C, A+D or B+D. However B+C would obviously crash)

[long dock]

@tall sinew been thinking more on Melee prayer names and I think a combo of ours would be the play.

"Immense Brawn" seems to fit well as the prayer does include Attack% so can't really call it Strength, whilst Supreme can be linked to other things so might cause slight confusion.

[tall sinew]

i mean brawn is kinda just a synonym of strength

either way it doesnt really matter all that much to me what the name is

[long dock]

Fair yeah was just tryna think of a way for both attack and strength to be combined

[vestal steppe]

Call it “Melee boost” surely then

[harsh prawn]

I think the best names for a Melee prayer would be to mimic Chivalry and Piety. So e.g. Rivalry, Gallantry, Bravery, etc.

[long dock]

well it goes from Hawk Eye -> Eagle Eye -> Dead Eye for Range so would want it to go a similar route.
Improved Reflexes -> Incredible Reflexes -> ?
Superhuman Strength -> Ultimate Strength -> ?
The Merge means the name should come from both sides

[harsh prawn]

I think it's subjective. Because Deadeye also provides a little Defence boost as well. So you can compare it to Rigour - yet they don't share a similarity in naming.

[long dock]

well that all depends on what they are going to do and where itll come from then cause in mine it wouldnt and all the defence would come fro Mithril Skin

[harsh prawn]

That would be an issue, since then it wouldn't match up with Deadeye and Mystic Vigour

[long dock]

well i wouldn't even have the 5% on Dead Eye and Mystic Vigour if they arent going to touch Chivalry

[harsh prawn]

Yeah this is why Jagex needs to setup a discussion for this.

It all looks wrong now. I think the poll with respect to the prayer part was very rushed.

[oak mural]

instead of being 1 defence as proposed.. make it like 30 defe
nce req or somewhere in-between.

[long dock]

No that is just pointlessly adding reqs for the sake of it

which further imbalances the game

[harsh prawn]

I think it's fine to have additional requirements, like 30 Def or 45 Def. Or even in some cases, I can see e.g. an Attack requirement, Magic requirement, Ranged requirement.

Because some gear in the game can require multiple skills - so I can see certain prayers requiring multiple skills.

Personally I would have recommended 45 Def for T4 prayers, since then it's a nice step between the 1 Def of previous tiers, and the 70 Def on T5 prayers.

[long dock]

You can use Range prayers with 1 range which is alot more odd. 70 def was a mistake in the first place it should of been 70 attack seen as its an offencive

[harsh prawn]

I don't think 70 Attack requirement on a Ranged prayer would make sense, since Attack is about physical accuracy.

[long dock]

i mean for Piety,

[harsh prawn]

Oh right, that I can see making sense

[long dock]

Range is hard to balance because it gains half the combat levels as Melee

anyway need another word for Incredible Reflexes that goes into one

to attach to Brawn aha

that also means top tier

[cerulean harness]

Agree

[cerulean harness]

Makes just as much sense as a 70 def Req

[harsh prawn]

I disagree. A Defence requirement can make sense since the prayers provide some Defence boost.

And as previously mentioned, it can sometimes make sense for certain things to have multiple skill requirements.

[cerulean harness]

Do you think you’re just trying to convince yourself it makes sense?

[long dock]

I've heard this response before but it still doesn't make sense because they don't require any Attack or Strength level requirements? yet they give boosts in them aswell.

[tame marten]

If using your options, Option D is simplest to keep it in line with Dead Eye/Mystic Vigour being released @ 5% def (ability to use with steel skin for 20% def).
However, Option A provides the tradeoffs described in the copy-pasta'd post between builds-types (i.e. punch up capacity at a cost); for zerks against meds having more of a glass-cannon optionality & likewise between the pure & zerk build-types due to the natural effect of the zerk being 5% squishier defensively (10% instead of 15% def) against a pure who receives no tangible benefit from the def%-multiplier, regardless of where added Steel Skin puts them; since for the pures it would be "% of 1 def".

All other build/account types (as described in the copy-pasta; essentially everyone else) would simply receive the slight benefit from your options offered due to the 2 version/overrides @ their %'s relative to current pray offerings. This should be a non-issue for them regarding polling, as it only benefits them as well, which is why I was specifically bringing up the functional effects of this between build-types in the paragraph above, to point out the main advantages to Option A over the rest without being a net-negative to balancing somewhere else.

However, the 4 options you provided don't have to be the only options either. Simply applying the copy-pasta'd post to your particular question and offerings.

.
Why is this important? It's important because it produces a more balanced voluntary option between build-types for the cost of tradeoffs, without simultaneously producing more imbalance elsewhere. This produces more variety, rather than account bottlenecking; bottlenecking which results from a def-req on a prayer which does not also have it's own counter-prayer of an equivalent att-req in the prayer book. Historically, this def-req has skewed all builds toward only 1 of 3 melee combat stats for prayer benefits; definitionally imbalanced in combat calculations for different build-types of the same cmb. Pointing this out as context for @harsh prawn based on his comments today.

The tradeoffs would be:

• Zerk gets higher combat due to prayer increase & likewise is 5% squishier than they would be if they stuck to 15%s, but in return, they receive the punch-up capacity to compete better.
• Pure likewise gets higher combat due to prayer increase & is now likely dealing with a bracket-shift meaning less pure vs pure, but they would receive the punch-up capacity to compete better against that new combat bracket of opponents.

These tradeoffs do not in fact truly balance things between builds. The only way to balance things between builds would be to remove all restrictions which are not prayer from "prayers". There are only 4 outliers in the whole prayer book, and they are the source of all the imbalance.

[harsh prawn]

No, I don't think so. As I said previously, there are instances where certain gear have multiple skill requirements to use. I don't see too much issue if there are prayers that have both a Prayer level requirement and a requirement in another skill.

I could see a future where there are other prayers with other skill requirements e.g. a prayer with both a Prayer level requirement and Attack and Strength level requirements. Similarly for Prayer and Ranged, and Prayer and Magic. So I don't see much issue with prayers with both Prayer and Defence level requirements.

[harsh prawn]

I'd say with the T1, T2, and T3 prayers, they each focus on boosting one skill.

However, when Chivalry and Piety were released, they each focused on boosting three skills. And with Rigour and Augury, this is also true.

With Rigour and Augury, one difference between them and the previous tier prayers is that they have the additional Defence boost. So I would argue that this is what makes it seem reasonable to impose a Defence level requirement.

[cerulean harness]

Okay well whether it makes sense or not is apparently subjective

But what’s not subjective is that locking this percentage-based offensive ability behind the defense skill has created massive imbalance between 70+ defense and every other account

Especially accounts with 70+ Defense and 50-60 Attack

[harsh prawn]

I do agree that a reduction in restrictions results in more account variety - particularly voluntary variety. I can certainly understand that conceptually, and how that is desirable.

I believe there is some merit in having prayers with additional requirements - including a Defence level requirement. Whether or not that should be imposed on T4 in the same way it is imposed on T5 prayers, I'm not entirely sure. Though if Chivalry is any indicator (of being like a T4 prayer), then there probably should be some Defence level requirement - somewhere between 1 Def and 70 Def.

[cerulean harness]

Or we could point out that locking offensive ability (via prayer) behind defense was a mistake and not make the same mistake again

[harsh prawn]

I think that's a fair point to bring up.

I don't know by how much we can discuss this within this suggestion, but I would hope Jagex brings up their own form of discussion around prayers. Since I want to know what kind of future should Prayer have as a skill.

There could be the argument to remove Defence level requirements, thus "streamlining" all prayers, with the aim of "making more balanced voluntary account variety" (with respect to combat).

There could be the argument to add more prayers with alternative restrictions, thus imposing variety, albeit "somewhat involuntary".

There is also God Alignments somewhere in the mix, which could be a factor.

Since I think there are a number of things to discuss regarding Prayer, and there are a number of ways to progress from there.

[harsh prawn]

I don't necessarily think it was a mistake. I think it has been undesirable for some people, particularly certain groups of people.

But I think that's subjective.

[tame marten]

I don't think we disagree in terms of "why" chiv/piety/rig/aug were given def reqs, I do however think that due to them being the newest releases, they are the ones which have deviated from the norm compared to the entire rest of the prayerbook; considering steel skin and below do not require a def req but offer def% (which is the same reasoning you've given as to why T5s got them; meaning incongruency in requirement application). Thus, despite understanding the reasons as to "why" they historically received the req, it doesn't mean it was objectively a smart/thought-out implementation to begin with, as balancing wasn't in mind considering chiv/piety came into the game without T5 range/mage equivalents, and their inevitable consequences, in mind.

However, if we're being honest regarding your statement here (and I agree with the direction of your statement if it is adamant from Jagex that additional reqs remain on prayers despite being the anomaly within the whole book):

• "I could see a future where there are other prayers with other skill requirements e.g. a prayer with both a Prayer level requirement and Attack and Strength level requirements. Similarly for Prayer and Ranged, and Prayer and Magic. So I don't see much issue with prayers with both Prayer and Defence level requirements."

I'd like to emphasize that you're actually describing why additional reqs on prayers are a problem (hence necessitating additional reqs elsewhere, which do not currently exist, to balance the equation) rather than why it should continue as a good practice into the future.

.
If you took someone who knew nothing about the game & they see that additional prayer-reqs have only ever been related to def, rather than balanced through the rest of the skills like a properly planned implementation of this "having prayers with additional requirements" would, they would see imbalanced implementation. This is relevant to point out, because this def-req on rig/aug was to match the tier of Piety, which was associated with a def-req only due to a quest-req, not because it belonged to "prayer" per se, nor because rig/aug also require a quest-req.

So I suppose we are left with the question of:

Which is feasibly the easier solution to solving the same problem, which is obvious in nature, to the prayerbook's current state of incongruency?

• Go through the whole prayerbook and retroactively apply reqs after a heavy degree of calculations to accurately fit each of the remaining 25/29 prayers and how they fit into the combat triangle in addition to the resulting combat calculation effects?

OR

• Remove an anomalous additional req to 4/29 total prayers?

[long dock]

T4 Shouldn't have def reqs, seen as T5 do have def reqs already pretty impossible to change now so to keep the game balanced when T6 comes out in the futue they could have high prayer levels to compensate but no def reqs but give negative def bonus, example;
90 Pray: 25% attack 27% strength -30% def
91 Pray: 25%range atk 27%range str -30% def
92 Pray: 30% Magic 5% magic damage -30% def

[cerulean harness]

Not totally sold on negative defensive % for those personally

[tame marten]

@cerulean harness had a bit about T90 course of direction as well somewhere, including how their combat lvl tradeoffs due to prayer level increase made sense.

[cerulean harness]

Not in our hands unfortunately. And even when it is, not in our hands 🙃

[long dock]

it would just incentivise using tank armour like justi more whilst keeping good dps up, piety would still be used then and become like the chill overall prayer like the blood fury whilst the T6 lvl 90 prayers would be like the rancour, high dps but no defence, true glass cannon

but ye thats long in the future need to fix the T4's first

[tame marten]

what's great about the benefits from the point made in the copy-pasta'd comment here:

• For "Jagex (as a company): 20/20/10 Chivalry means an unobtrusive, real-time, in-game, non-meta affecting tangible example with minimal dev-time for data collection and observation, that would provide solid 1:1 feedback for what the effects of adding Higher-Tier 90+ prayers in the future (or alignments) which focus more on that "punch-up" capacity whilst having the "cost" of lower def % or something of similar effect."

..is that it's currently the topic of discussion to be addressed (T4s; timely), it's non-meta affecting in terms of end game pvm or pvp (low consequence), and likewise would serve as a very low barrier-to-entry testing ground (dev time), because it's not a new prayer & currently serves the least utility in it's current capacity, for the purpose of testing out the ideas behind the future of T90 prayer implementations; seeing as 77-99 is an open field yet to be filled.

[tame marten]

Your comment here..:

• "There could be the argument to remove Defence level requirements, thus "streamlining" all prayers, with the aim of "making more balanced voluntary account variety" (with respect to combat)."

..makes the most logical sense, as "Prayer" is it's own skill, separate from the "Defence" skill, which also comes with it's own resulting combat-level tradeoff; separate entirely from the combat-lvl calculation that att/str/def give. Doing so, would make it's benefits a voluntary opt-in choice for all account types, at an equivalent combat-lvl tradeoff applied equally to any and all accounts which choose that as a skill for their build-path. Logically this makes the most sense, rather than restricting the current and future of the "Prayer" skill's "offensive" benefits, behind a skill which is by nature called "Defence"; neither "Prayer" nor "offensive" (att/str).

[harsh prawn]

I'm not entirely sure there would need to be a retroactive change to the 25/29 other prayers. But talking about that might not be too helpful right now: I'm interested in asking your opinion about something, to try and understand your perspective.

Consider the following examples:

• Blood moon armour: requires 75 Strength and 50 Defence
• Elysian spirit shield: requires 75 Defence and 75 Prayer

Is it an issue that these items have non-Defence requirements? I guess I'm not understanding why gear could have additional requirements, but prayers couldn't.

I understand why additional requirements impose less voluntary variety, and I can see that from one perspective how that can be undesirable for certain players. But I'm not understanding why there couldn't be a range of prayers, with differents set of requirements, and how that could be bad practice for the future.

[cerulean harness]

This particular scenario just leads to massive imbalance across accounts of similar combat level.

Typically if you compare a pure to a “normal” account of the same combat level, while the pure can hit higher, the “normal” account is tankier and more well rounded

Now take a Cb 100 account with 70 Defense, either 50 or 60 attack. They are tankier, do more damage, and are more accurate in all 3 styles compared to any other sub70 Defense account that is also 100 combat.

Literally because of prayer. They could be in identical gear and all 3 of those things would still be true

There needs to be a balance. A build can thrive in one area but should fall short in another in comparison to a different account build of the same combat level

[tame marten]

I see where you're coming from with your examples of Blood Moon Armour and the Elysian Spirit Shield, which have more than one requirement. It's not inherently problematic for items to have multiple requirements. However, it's essential to understand the purpose of these requirements from first principles: "What is the reason for multiple requirements on any particular item?" The logical answer is: "Because the benefits received from that requirement justify its purpose." For instance, the Bulwark has an Attack and Defence requirement because it's a shield you can attack with. Otherwise, adding a random requirement, like 94 Farming on a weapon, would be illogical without a justifiable benefit.

The issue arises when prayers exclusively demand Defence levels as the additional requirement. Defence is only one aspect of melee combat, and melee combat only one aspect of the combat triangle, but the benefits of prayers are not limited to Defence alone. Items like Blood Moon Armour, which provide Strength bonuses and a set effect with a specific weapon, or the Elysian Spirit Shield, which offers prayer bonuses and a circumstantial passive (including it's themed req of 90 prayer to actually make), have requirements that match their benefits. Imagine if every high-level armour required an additional Strength requirement due to its offensive bonuses, it would constrain player choices. This scenario would force all accounts aiming to use high-level armours to meet the additional Strength requirement, limiting variety/diversity of gameplay. However, in reality a similar standard for the "additional requirements" policy does not likewise apply for armours like Obsidian, Bandos, Torva, even BH armours despite their set effects, strength bonuses, or even accuracy & strength like Vesta offers (a double standard if-you-will).

.
Furthermore, armour generally offers additive bonuses or circumstantial percentage multipliers, while prayers provide flat percentage multipliers to every hit (whether received or dealt). This difference makes it more impactful when prayers have restrictive requirements. Just as all high-level armours demanding an additional Strength requirement would be overly restrictive, the same logic applies to prayers, but to a larger degree due to their multiplicative nature.

At first glance.. hypothetically, if prayers had a range of additional requirements (rather than just Defence), it appears to be the correct policy as it would indeed allow for more diverse builds and strategies of gameplay, since exclusively relying on Defence for high-level prayers objectively limits variety and player choice. I even have an entire example from a conversation over a year ago, explaining how Jagex could enable Piety access using EITHER 70 attack OR 70 def, in addition to the normal 70 prayer. This provides additional build-pathways to reaching the prayer benefits received from that additional requirement; justifying it's purpose (i.e. accuracy-% multipliers of Piety for the 70 attack req) for the exact same combat level cost in either path (70 att or 70 def) all while never taking anything away from those who already have Piety. Would be happy to share it here.

That said.. doubling down on the "additional requirements" policy for current or future prayers could also lead to imbalances in the combat triangle (Melee, Ranged, and Magic). Ranged and Magic skills do not produce an equivalent combat level cost as Attack, Strength, or Defence for the "additional requirements" policy to remain coherent while providing the greatest array of gameplays. This combat level discrepancy arising from the divergent effects of the "same policy" applied across the combat triangle, would disrupt the game's overall balance.

.
The better solution would be to eliminate the additional requirements on prayers and let them be governed by the Prayer skill alone. This approach would maintain consistency, prevent imbalances in future content releases, and ensure equal-opportunity gameplay (whilst still enabling Prayer to supplement the natural emergent "strengths" of each build-pathway according to their respective prioritized stat-choices). By doing away with unnecessary additional requirements, prayers can remain balanced and true to their purpose, enhancing the game's overall experience.

[harsh prawn]

Suppose there were a new Prayer that also required 70 Attack. Would that then improve the balancing issues? Since the cb100 70 Def with 50/60 Attack wouldn't be able to use the new prayer.

[harsh prawn]

Eagle Eye is a prayer without a Defence level requirement, yet Rigour does have a Defence level requirement. My argument would be that the additional Defence boost is what compels having the Defence level requirement.

However, it's understandable that to get Eagle Eye with a Defence boost you simply turn on Steel Skin - which doesn't have a Defence level requirement. And I can see how the difference between using one prayer vs using two prayers might be so minimal that an additional requirement isn't relevant.

[harsh prawn]

Personally I would be interested in reading that suggestion. Though it would probably be better as its own suggestion in #1022203837265756231 rather than in this suggestion.

I'm curious; what if the requirement wasn't a Defence level, but a combat level? I suspect that's still a bit limiting, but perhaps that would provide enough variety?

[fluid fjord]

His suggestion is to introduce a second variant of Piety as I understand it for 70 attack that would be more offensively focused with lower defence boost. Piety would still be available for 50 attack 70 def accounts, and 70 attack 45 def accounts would then have a more offensively/accurate version of piety.

Combat level as a requirement seems interesting to me at first glance, as I'd imagine it could be quite easy to balance in a meaningful way and at the same time allow for plenty of variety of builds, but I haven't thought very deeply into it so far but it could be discussed in a new thread in his suggestion 😄
Those suggestions would however as you say be fit for a new proposal in #1022203837265756231, indeed. I will try to get back on track to the more relevant aspects for this thread's proposal now:

[fluid fjord]

Yes, however I meant that you could chose 1 option for Rivalry and 1 option for Chivalry and implement both in one prayerslot, where Chivalry is a direct upgrade and would replace/override Rivalry.

So perhaps the best proposal in line with this thread's suggestion for a 20%/20% attack/strength option would be:

'Rivalry' (A):
20%/20%/-5% (20%/20%/10% with steel skin)

'Chivalry' (D):
20%/20%/5% (20%/20%/20% with steel skin)

So that would be an elegant alternative from this thread's original proposal which I'll sum up again here for clarity;

**'Rivalry' **(My original proposal in this thread):
18%/18%/0% (18%/18%/15% with steel skin)

**'Chivalry' **(Proposal copied from Royal Titans Blog Post):
18%/18%/5% (18%/18%/20% with steel skin)

[long dock]

I made a Reddit post for my Suggestion and was genuinely surprised it didn't get nuked as everything does on there 😅 but has been positive https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/1hh8wud/if_we_dont_want_to_touch_chivalry_at_all_the_new/

[fluid fjord]

Oh nice, it's a great post! Also I think the way you present it with those graphics is a lot better than how I used only text here 😦
Maybe I should try to make an illustration like that too, it's so easy to read and understand..

I do think you got a really good solution proposed there tho, sad that mods here closed your thread 😦 Seems to me like it is different enough of a solution to warrant a separate thread...

[cerulean harness]

Nah it’s not that - it’s basically what @tame marten had said. Allow Piety/Rigour/Augury to have an “either / or” requirement of 70 Defense or 70 Attack

Same stats as they have now - nothing different

Alternatively, stronger versions that require nothing more than prayer, with requirements in the 90s

My personal opinions on this have changed a little over the last few years but this is basically where I’m at now

A new prayer book would be cool too. Really wish Jagex would’ve kept working on Ruinous Powers instead of scrapping them entirely

.
My only real concern with piety-like damage on pures is that when max hits reach a certain point, it becomes almost impossible to avoid being “chanced” in fights without overheads. Like BH. Especially arrow-double gmaul (or ballista-gmaul)

When people start one-hitting each other too often, PKing becomes less fun because it just turns into a dice roll.

To that point, that’s why I think it makes some sense locking max hits behind the defense skill, so that you’re at a combat level where you’re fighting others that have defense so you don’t constantly 1-hit each other.

But I think those max hits should be locked behind armor, that requires defense. Not a prayer

Like right now, with the dbow axe axe situation in bounty hunter. Unless you’re eating at 80hp (which is a chore since every 2 ticks your getting hit for 20 damage by a dragon knife), you get chanced by the dbow axe axe combo

Glad they’re finally nerfing that

[long dock]

As long as a JMod sees it and it's acknowledged as a candidate that's all I care about.

[long dock]

You have the links to all the alternatives on here but it's not towards the top so maybe do that

[fluid fjord]

Ohh, right, thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding.
I think the better solution for that imbalance would be to either remove def req from tier 5 prayers or introduce a bit stronger or more offensive variants at 90ish prayer yeah causing a significant cost of combat levels to unlock but with only prayer. But if a lot of PvP gets 90+ prayer, then perhaps an upgraded smite unlocked at 80-90+ prayer would be required for balancing smite with the new high prayer levels, a smite version that scales with opponents prayer level or so

[fluid fjord]

I'm quite conservative on new prayerbook, I think there's so much room to improve and make more space in the current one that at least that one could have improvements etc. and work on it's potential before potentially looking at another prayerbook

[fluid fjord]

Yeah, and with 70 attack piety, piety would be unlocked at combat levels in the mid 80s, whereas currently the 70 def req pushes piety unlock on viable pvp builds up to high 90s, so it would be quite a lot more power to 1 def pures at a significantly lower combat level than piety has been unlocked at previously. The 70 attack doesn't seem to be the right way, it seems to be more in the direction of complicating or making the imbalance worse without fixing it, though it would fix for some account brackets it could introduce problems at others like pure brackets

So yeah, solutions boil down to either removal of 70 def req on the tier 5s could be a viable solution (though unpractical, it would never happen IMO and probably shouldn't either)

or what is probably the best way forward; introducing the tier 6 prayers at 90+ prayer without def reqs, but hopefully with a smite that can scale on opponents prayer level so there is still possibility of getting smited for balance 🙂

[fluid fjord]

Yeah I've added in a link to the comment with all the Chivalry/T4 melee prayer suggestions in the last paragraph of the original post now 👍

#MegaThread Chivalry Solutions + "Rivalry" Prayer (Weaker Chivalry) + Prayer Balancing

Since the other suggestions were closed and directed into this post I've adjusted the title accordingly to fit with the new context where this thread now has effectively become a platform to discuss the different options/solutions for tier 4 melee prayer and Chivalry and also on the related issues of prayer balancing and the prayerbook's changes going forward

[ebon lance]

wouldn't the underlying problem of having to click several prayers still be the same though

i like the idea though

[long dock]

No because it's Merging the Attack&Strength ones you can freely click between "Supreme Brawn" to Dead Eye" when meleeing/ranging and back again whilst "Mithril Skin" will stay on in the background not turning off, also gives the option to just keep it off anyway as sometimes not needed and saves prayer points as currently people do when choosing not to use Steel Skin.

[long dock]

Thank you I really hope it's seen by a JMod cause I genuinely feel it would fit and keep everything in-line.

[cerulean harness]

That’s exactly my thought process (regarding smite)

Yes bro 🔥

[cerulean harness]

I mean I think a 50 att pure having Piety would borderline break PvP. Gmaul max (although in absolute max 1 def gear) would go from 43-43 to 46-46 for only ~2.25 combat levels (putting you at ~80 to 81 combat)

For a 42 def account, the gmaul max (again in absolute max gear) goes from 47-47 to 50-50, and they go from like 90 to 92 combat

That’s why putting an alternative Req of 70 Attack would keep the gmaul maxes in check for low combat level accounts

If they want those maxes with low attack, they’d have to get 90+ prayer which would be 4-5 combat levels instead of 2-3

Same thought process with Ranged tbh. It effectively locks max hits behind combat level thresholds, to some degree, so everyone isn’t just 1-tapping each other first chance

Probably no perfect way to do it, but it would be better than what we have now

[fluid fjord]

Yeah, exactly, prayer levels alone wouldn't balance power at specific combat levels/brackets. Combat level as a requirement to unlock certain prayers could be an interesting path to consider tho?

I don't think the 70 attack is a good solution. Sure it will balance specific builds/brackets better indeed, but I think it will introduce new issues/imbalances in other ways along with it.. I'm optimistic for better solutions. Like perhaps the combat level req for specific prayer unlocks?

[long dock]

It's a tricky situation already because even if we say you need 100cb to use the current final tier of prayers it's still locked behind quests and def so would be a lot of changing.

But having Rigour just require 74Prayer and 100cb nothing else is alot more balanced then 74Prayer 70def

Would this then leave 95cb-99cb pointless and a rough spot to be in tho?

As the newer 18% prayers coming wouldn't really need a req but no real benefit going above the 85-94cb zones

Then again even if we have that deadzone just before 100cb it's still better then what's currently happening with imbalances 🤣

a 100cb 75atk Piety Zerk versus a 100cb Range Tank would be kinda fair though

You could then throw the 100cb 1def Piety Pures into the mix would still honestly be fair as they would have 99atk 86pray meaning yeah they get hit lots and shredded up but would get newer higher tier weapons in the future that req 95+ attack.

Funnily enough though changing Piety to 70pray 100cb would give Chivalry more life for players yet to level up before that 🤣

[cerulean harness]

What do you think is wrong with the 70 attack path? Just curious

[long dock]

@cerulean harness what do you think about changing it to 100cb req? Looking more into cb levels calculators actually can create alot more variety of builds including:

Full Dragon Pure
60atk 99str 60def 99hp 77prayer - 100cb
Claws into full obsidian necklace maul

Classic Initiate/CorruptedVesta/inq
90atk 99str 20def 99hp 77prayer - 100cb
82atk 99str 30def 99hp 77prayer - 100cb

30atk 99str 99def 99hp 77prayer - 100cb
The ultimate range tank into a piety status Warhammer ko
So much variety

[harsh prawn]

I am also interested to hear what others' responses are regarding if combat levels could be a more reasonable requirement than Defence levels.

Because if so, I think it might make the idea of additional sources for prayers - Chivalry and Piety, but also Rigour and Augury - more palatable for all players.

It could be that every T4 prayer should come from both a quest and giant boss(es).

And that every T5 prayer comes from a quest and a raid.

[cerulean harness]

I think slapping a hard combat level requirement on it actually limits variety. If you just say 70 Attack or Defense, that creates a lot more variety

Also, unless they rework the Knights Training Ground rewards, that last build wouldn’t be possible. You’d be at least 33 Attack. Minimum Attack level with Piety and Barrows gloves is somewhere in the mid 30s

[harsh prawn]

Open question: how significantly more limiting in variety would a combat level requirement be over a 70 Attack or 70 Defence requirement?

[cerulean harness]

Imagine scenarios like this:

Combat Level 91

• Attack: 75
• Strength/Range/Mage: 99
• Hitpoints: 99
• Defense: 1
• Prayer: 77

Combat Level 95

• Attack: 75
• Strength/Range/Mage: 99
• Hitpoints: 99
• Defense: 20
• Prayer: 77

Combat Level 99

• Attack: 75
• Strength/Range/Mage: 99
• Hitpoints: 95
• Defense: 40
• Prayer: 74

Not sure why a combat level requirement should prevent accounts like these from having Piety/Rigour/Augury-type prayers

[harsh prawn]

So if the requirement were cb100, these accounts wouldn't have access to the T5 prayers.

If the requirement were cb90, these accounts would have access to the T5 prayers.

Would there still be significant builds without cb90 that should have T5 prayers?

Or would cb90 be too low of a requirement that some issue would arise?

[cerulean harness]

It would basically make it so that unmaxed versions of that 1 Def account can’t use the prayers.

I really just don’t think a combat level requirement makes sense

[long dock]

This is all hypothetical in the sense of things being changed so you can get Piety without any other type of exp ofc like Rigour and Augury, all the accounts you listed cannot currently use Piety or Rigour anyway, you were talking about max hits going crazy with T5 on lower brackets that's all so 100cb req instead of Def would stop that whilst fixing the op game imbalance that Rigour tanks and 50att piety builds currently have, whilst also giving Chivalry more of a use earlier on and for everyone below 100cb

[cerulean harness]

Yeah the 70 Attack alternative requirement would basically act as a combat level requirement

[long dock]

^The current two 94cb Boogeyman builds would now only be able to use Chivalry and Dead Eye instead fixing the game imbalance there, whilst accounts currently over 100cb can now use the T5's like high attack Zerks and new builds with 60 def

[long dock]

I guess it all depends what we would want to achieve here, with a 70attack or Def version you suggested everyone would get huge hits earlier instead of just the 2 Boogeyman builds but is that a good thing? Id rather just take away the 2 Boogeyman and leave the huge hits for higher brackets which would be 100cb+

[long dock]

90cb would be way to low imo creating a 50/99/50 moons gmauler with piety amongst other things it would give everyone huge hits, createing a dead zone from 85cb-89cb and I guess make Chivalry still unused.

70atk or 70def would be better then the current system
100cb would be better then the current system

70's favours giving everyone huge hits early whilst the 100cb favours lowering the hits slightly earlier and giving Chivalry/DeadEye more use whilst saving the huge hits for later.

BUT in any system their is always going to be a deadzone no matter which route is picked.

70's would create a 51-69atk or 51-69def deadzone where you wouldn't want to be whilst,
100cb would create a 95cb-99cb deadzone where you wouldn't want to be.

All depends on the goal but the true hard goal would be getting Jagex to allow getting Piety without the quest req levels or taking the combat exp from quests 🤣

[cerulean harness]

I don’t think there would be any dead zone with the 70/70 option, so long as there is a Chivalry-like prayer

What are the “boogeyman” builds that you keep referring to? At 94cb

[long dock]

60atk and 60def would be pointless though in a 70/70 system? Rn people are either 50def or 70def no in-between but 100cb would change that meaning every Def level matters more.

And whatever them OP Rigour Piety accounts are around 94cb.

Also in a 70/70 system 60atk Zerkers would be in hell as every other build around them would have access to T5 whilst they are stuck with T4.

[cerulean harness]

Well that’s like saying everything sub70 defense is pointless right now but that’s not true. Things just start to become very unbalanced around 95-100 combat (because that’s where the rigour builds live). Same story around 90cb for pures

People could go 60 Defense but it’s just historically been an odd stopping point that’s so close to 70 that it’s more worth it to go 70.

In hindsight, the normal variants of BH armor could’ve required 60 defense instead of 78. That would’ve been pretty interesting

50att Rigour builds are between like 96-102 cb depending on HP level and 70-78 defense

60att zerkers are already insanely strong and will get even stronger with T4 prayers. I don’t think that build will be “in hell”

It’s the build I’ve played the most for the last 10+ years. It’s good dude lol, very good. In its bracket, it’s king, no question

[long dock]

Aye fair play you know more then me in that department I just assumed the step up from T4 to T5 would change alot, I just assumed rn 99range 70def 78hp 74pray Rigour would be the strongest at 94cb and 100cb system would eradicate that and in a 70/70 system 60atk Zerkers would get worse because the opponents would get even more stronger.

Id just like to see a game where Chivalry/DeadEye last a bit longer whilst bringing new builds into the game with like 55-69def as currently there's no benefit to exist in the current system.

Would you be confident in a 70/70 system to not turn into a 1-tapping lottery as you said previous? And in a 70/70 system wouldn't it create 76cb-82cb Rigour range pures?

[cerulean harness]

Nah at 94cb the hp is so low, they’re very vulnerable. They’re only artificially good because the BH DBow. Take that away and they’re much less powerful

60att zerks may be up against new builds like 75 att 70+ prayer pures or that same acc with 20 defense, but those builds are currently at a significant disadvantage against 60/45s so this could work towards balancing it

You’re right about the rigour pures at 1 def between 76-82 cb depending on hp level. DBow would go from 43-43 to 46-46. They would be effectively useless with melee though, so maybe that is okay?

Would need to be tested ofc. No I’m not 100% confident in the 70/70 system, but like you said, I think it’s better than what we have now

To your other point though, I can understand how a 100cb requirement could create some diversity, but I think it would create another seemingly arbitrary divide between 100+ cb and everyone else

[long dock]

Yeah that's fair, there's always going to be a divide no matter what route is taken so I guess it's just deciding which is overall the best for the game longer term

[cedar creek]

better overall is putting this to rest as we've shown multiple times youre better off leveling your defence instead of trying to change existing mechanics 👍

hope that helps vote no to pvp !

[long dock]

??

[long dock]

Literally changing Piety to require 100cb instead of 70def will still mean you need to level defence, it would just mean every single DEFENCE level would matter rather than the current system of disparity from 70 and even just 1 level under. smh

[cedar creek]

I want to fish sharks at 45 fishing because im a 45 fishing pure please change it 🥺

If chivalry won’t pass what makes you think piety would lmfao

Legit insane

And to be fair I voted yes the first time but no when they bundled it

[long dock]

What are you even talking about now you have no idea, you are clearly a clueless skiller we are obvs talking hypothetical here in a ideal scenario perfect world where we could do a rebalance everything as best as we could, nothing about passing or polling and TBF Jagex didn't poll rebalancing Magic

[cedar creek]

Clearly you’re a biased pvp andy. You guys have legit insane takes and that’s why all your stuff fails. Completely want to rebalance the game because you want the novelty of something like 45 defence to use end game equipment when your account still has progression that you arbitrarily locked

Keep dreaming up stuff that will never happen though maybe your project zanaris server will have what you’re looking for 👍

[long dock]

Nothing about being biased it's all about being logical and fixing what's broken and you clearly can't see that so not fit for discussion 👍🏻

[cedar creek]

It’s not broken because you’re choosing to limit yourself

Just like ironmen are. You want something you have the means to get it

[long dock]

I'm not choosing anything? Why would an account who has 65 defence get a huge DPS loss compared to someone with 70 when it's 1cb level difference?

[cedar creek]

But you guys want to shape the entire game around the very small minority that actually care about pvp in a 25 year old browser game

[cedar creek]

Because they leveled for it? With that logic why should 70 attack not get godswords or 50 attacks get claws?

You’re picking and choosing and want the rest of the game to be warped around that idea. Until you guys realize that you’ll continue to get no content unless goblin or Ayiza force it through or limit who votes

[long dock]

?? The different between 69def and 70def is massive for no logical reason? When it's a Prayer Skill using Offensives lmao

Ofc 50 attk and 70 attk are going to be different in DPS you are using weapons 🤣🤣

[cedar creek]

? But it’s 1-2 cb levels I though that didn’t matter

Or is it different when it fits what you want

Ah I see it’s different when it suits what you want the meta to be

And that’s why yall will continue get no content

Hope that helps but you guys are too blind to that fact!

[long dock]

There shouldn't be a meta that's the points, a random arbitrary line of 70def being the meta is wild , 69def lives matter

[cedar creek]

So does 45 fishing lives

[long dock]

100cb would open up everything

Having 69def wouldn't be a hindrance anymore

[vale island]

Obvious solution is to remove all level requirements from the game

[cedar creek]

Yes

Or change them to fit exactly what I want

[long dock]

Requirements are needed and it's not for fitting what anyone wants it to fix a cleaner fairer system lmao

[cedar creek]

Fairer to who? People that arbitrarily choose to limit themselves?

[long dock]

You have no idea honestly

[cedar creek]

Neither do the pvpers

[long dock]

Just because something has been designed already and in place doesn't make it good

[cedar creek]

So you’re picking and choosing what is good and bad? Then why can’t I say I want to complete all the diaries but think the runecrafting requirement isn’t fair

[long dock]

The Dev randomly picked 70 as the line 17 years ago without any thought, doesn't make it good, we have got better at balance now, if they made it 100cb wouldn't be having this conversation with your logic because it has always been a thing

[cedar creek]

A dev also thought adding in a limited fomo wilderness boss was a good idea

You’re right though, a random dev that worked on piety/chivalry picked that requirement. But that’s how the game has been since then. That’s how builds and accounts have been created since then

Completely changing existing content to cater to a very small portion of the playerbase is crazy work

[long dock]

The builds were around before the released of kings randsom you know?, them choosing that made more imbalance arguably 2006 was the most balanced time

Not getting into this anymore cause it's pointless but it's not completely changing any existing content it's just changing a digit to help fix things and actually create more progression as you would use chivalry longer in your journey until you reach that milestone of 100cb however you choose to do it

[cedar creek]

You’re not getting into it anymore because you’re a pvper that only knows your way and no other way

[long dock]

Piety is way to strong anyway for it's level

[cedar creek]

You know this is a pipe dream that you can make come true once project zanaris comes out

That’s a completely different conversation but yes piety should be mid 70s at minimum

[long dock]

You wouldn't give someone a scythe after doing dragon slayer 1, same thing

[cedar creek]

Not even a close comparison lmao

But I do see the sentiment

It’s a problem with rigour and augury too if I’m being honest. Should have never been buyable but instead something like they’re doing with royal titans

[long dock]

There's a reason Piety is the oldest BIS in the game of 17 years, because of how strong it is, the power of it really should require 80atk80str80def but how do we do that in a normal none limiting way? Easy 100cb as that's what you get generally when you have them skill levels. Also this type of totaling up conversion already exists within a 85cb dream mentor, needing a 130atk/str combine to enter the warriors guild and 100cb to use duradel

[cerulean harness]

Or we’re trying to address a major source of PvP imbalance - but you’re just a biased pvm andy so I wouldn’t expect you to get that

[cedar creek]

king of bad pvp takes 🥱 balancing the game progression around a small loud community is terrible, which is why you and the ret of the pvp discords takes have failed time and time again

[cerulean harness]

And who tf are you lmfao

[cedar creek]

someone who loved watching u and the rest of the crew cry spite voters when your ideas fail because youre trying to balance the game around 5% of players

mod wrathmaw is really trying tho

[cerulean harness]

We’re not trying to balance the game around 5% of players. We’re trying to balance the game in general

[cedar creek]

for the people refusing that novelty accounts should be that, novelty

[cerulean harness]

Novelty? You mean a staple of Runescape? Get a clue

[cedar creek]

maybe in 2007 when people didnt know f keys existed

[cerulean harness]

🤡

[cedar creek]

bro saying get a clue but refuses to level a skill in the game to make his character stronger

🤡

the wilderness will never be what it was prior to eoc, but like i said maybe you guys can enjoy project zanaris 👍

[cerulean harness]

Yeah not interested in Jagex trying to put us away into a private server, thanks. I’m sure you’d like that though

[cerulean harness]

A whole lotta offensive capability locked behind the defense skill. Seems unbalanced to me. How dare I share my opinion

[cedar creek]

i think 95% of the community would tbh

[cedar creek]

yeah and torva is locked, should 1 defence get that too? or are you picking and choosing as well

claws are locked behind 60 attack, should that get moved as well?

or no because theres novelty and muh 2007 pking

[cerulean harness]

“Picking and choosing” prayer, hence the title of this thread.

[cedar creek]

right. so its what you deem as unacceptable

[cerulean harness]

You’re not adding anything useful to this conversation

[long dock]

Jerry you are clueless I hear this same stuff about Torva all the time it's completely different as that is an Armour not a Prayer, we have the Prayer skill for a reason... If you actually realise what we are trying to do is make things fair as surely if 2 players were both 100cb they should be on an evening playing field right? No matter what journey they have done with there skills, currently they are really not

[cedar creek]

why cant i fish sharks at 45 fishing? whats the difference between that and you at 45 defence (assuming from your profile pic) wanting piety?

[cedar creek]

when all of your polls fail, is the vast community clueless or is it because you lot have unreasonable expectations and demands

also i missed a quest mob tag in wow responding so now i am sad

[long dock]

Bro I'm not even a PvPer really, 90% of my time has been PvM which has caused me to do all the content in the game hence why I have the time here to do all this, I'm being logical

Jagex decided to turn the game into Slayer Scape, which is completely fine but that's why there's more people doing PvMing which ultimately means more votes on that side now from people who are genuinely clueless about things

[cedar creek]

i made pking accounts all the time before eoc and loved it, which im sure a lot of people have. but trying to balance this game around pvp when its wildly unpopular compared to pvm isnt the way to do it

in todays age

people are trying to reminisce those days, but no matter how many times jagex hastried to revive the wilderness in osrs it has never worked because the playerbase isnt the same

[long dock]

It's not even about all that's it's just a rebalance 🤣 tell me why does Piety have a defence req when it's a Prayer?? Surely we have the Prayer skill for a reason? but wait a second there's no Strength req or Attack req? If it had all 3 then fair enough but it doesn't have no logic to it.

[cedar creek]

because no one cared about this vocally until manked tried to make content that was wildly unpopular

[long dock]

I disagree

And you still haven't given me a reason

[cedar creek]

same reason why claws are 60 attack

because thats what jagex put them as

[long dock]

Wrong, claws require an attack req because they are a Weapon

[cerulean harness]

The vast community is clueless. Sorry to offend anyone. That’s the reality.

[cedar creek]

in your eyes sure

[long dock]

You are still tip toeing around my question and not giving a logical answer

[cedar creek]

i dont think anyone is going to be offended over words on the internet

[long dock]

Just throwing other random stuff irelveant out there

[cerulean harness]

People have cared about this for 5+ years dude you just live under a rock

[cedar creek]

well kings ransom has a defence requirement and the prayers are lore locked behind that

[cerulean harness]

The real main take away of this thread is that there should be a melee-equivalent tier 60 prayer for melee. Thats really all we’re trying to say. At the very least

[cedar creek]

but then you lot try to get xp lamps added because muh quests

[cedar creek]

i thought it was to add piety?

thats what it devolved into

i 100% believe chiv woulda passed if it wasnt lumped in with other questions

but they keep wanting to add other stipulations

[cerulean harness]

Just rambling about what could be next. That’s all it is. We really just primarily want a melee prayer to go along with the range and mage ones

[cerulean harness]

What is so wrong with how it was phrased?

[cedar creek]

because its a grouped question

if it was just a 3rd titan unlocks chiv

[cerulean harness]

Who gives a shit

[cedar creek]

apparently enough people do so it fails

that was wildly a sentiment shared online

[cerulean harness]

Doesn’t impact them at all but all of a sudden they care because they want to feel important and have an opinion

Neat

[cedar creek]

it doesnt and ur clueless and emotional for it

grouping questions is stupid

[cedar creek]

and this applies to u in this circumstance

[cerulean harness]

You say this as if people wouldn’t have fabricated a problem with this and held it as justification to vote against it

[cedar creek]

thats just u projecting

i voted for chiv the first time, then no the second time

because grouped questions is a half assed way to get content in the game people dont really want

but then they feel obligated to give up something that would be bad for the game to get content they want

[cerulean harness]

And that’s just your specific opinion. Comes from zombies? Sure. Fuck lore but sure.

Comes from the same questline but mandatory defense xp removed to align with the range and mage options? Nah vote no

Like all of a sudden you have a problem with that. And everyone’s different. Thousands voted the opposite way that you did

[cedar creek]

it got more votes this time around

it truly makes me curious how the poll would look if it wasnt grouped

[cerulean harness]

Yeah because the suggestion was objectively better, aligned with feedback, and it should’ve passed.

[cedar creek]

i agree it should have, but they grouped it

[cerulean harness]

But who cares

[cedar creek]

obviously enough do

but yall are gonna cry spite vote

[cerulean harness]

It doesn’t impact them

It literally does not impact them

[cedar creek]

it does when jagex sees they can group questions and stuff still passes

[cerulean harness]

They just have the numbers so they can fuck over whoever they want

[cedar creek]

like theyre gonna do with wrathmaw and sandmaw

then its gonna fail again, and yall will have more threads

i think people are wildly against xp lamps as quest rewards

[cerulean harness]

A Wildy locked world boss was a fantastic idea that would’ve been a lot of fun. We’ll never see it though because people are entitled and want to do every single piece of content how they want it, when they want it. Zzz

[cedar creek]

because its fomo content

and its basically a daily

[cerulean harness]

Funny because every single quest since OSRS release has quest xp lamps that don’t mandate Defense

[cedar creek]

mistyped, meant changing past rewards

thats my bad

[cerulean harness]

All in your head. It’s just a game.

[cedar creek]

sry trying to tag mobs in wow while replying lol

[cedar creek]

it is just a game, so i dont know why youre trying to balance the game around a very small number of players

[cerulean harness]

I don’t know why you keep playing this card as if it’s meaningful. It’s not. Game balance is game balance. Thousands of players enjoy PvP, and PvP is more enjoyable when there is viable variety. Imbalance kills variety. Prayer progression is a strong source of imbalance

This is literally my thing dude. All I do in this game is PvP. Every single type of PvP bar large scale multi

Can you please just acknowledge I might possibly know wtf I’m talking about

[cedar creek]

from a pvp aspect, but you fail to entertain theres more than pvp in the game

theres thousands of pvpers, but theres tens of thousands of pvmers

my knowledge of pvp is knowing that 99% of pkers that try to kill me in the wild are literal bots that you can freeze log

guys that are as good and as into pvp as you and the others that were very vocal in the pvp discord are not the vast majority of pkers

i do think you guys have ideas that would be more fun for yall, but looking at you guys think that wrathmaw and mass alching stacks at the fountain of rune seriously shows how out of touch you are with the general playerbase

[cerulean harness]

Why does this matter exactly?

[cedar creek]

Because your opinion was there’s thousands of pkers that enjoy balance, but obviously tens of thousands of people disagree with your ideas of balance

[cerulean harness]

I was on the fence about the fountain of rune. Would mainly attract ironmen. Probably not a great thing. It’s a shame we even have to consider ironmen tbh but here we are

Also on the fence about wrathmaw rewards but 🤷🏻‍♂️ doesn’t matter anymore

[cerulean harness]

If you restricted that poll to true PKers only, it would’ve passed with flying fuckin colors. Don’t even start lmao

[cedar creek]

As someone that burnt on my main once I got infernal cape and swapped to iron I agree that the catering to ironmen is really old

[long dock]

The Pkers that kill you are either maxed combat or have a 70def med accounts you know, well I hope so would be pretty embarrassing dying to a pure, this is about game balance

[cedar creek]

Of course lmao

Because you’re ignoring 90% of the population

And only polling the people that want it

[cerulean harness]

What, you think non-PKers enjoy non-balanced PvP? Is that what you’re really suggesting?

[cedar creek]

I honestly can’t remember the last time I died during my vw grind because the people that go to those caves are legit AI

[cedar creek]

I think you guys are trying to imbalance it even more by buffing accounts. Even if the accounts you’re buffing are sub 100 cb and will only kill players that are legitimately new or bad at the game

Why do you want a different version of chivalry? If all you want is a 1 click prayer why does it have to be stronger offensively? (I know why but for the sake of argument)

[long dock]

No it's the Rigour tanks that are killing them type of players that's the imbalance

[cedar creek]

Little Timmy trying out calvarion is going to get clawed out regardless if it’s a rigour tank

Now if it was something that was maybe PVP/BH worlds only 🤷🏻‍♂️

But the wilderness already has an insane difference of rules that you need the wiki to figure out

[long dock]

It doesn't need to be that's the thing, if it's fine in PVP/BH worlds it should be fine anywhere and everywhere straight up verziks ass

[cedar creek]

@cerulean harness was it you that was on saes podcast? I know it was belle and someone else but the non belle guy actually had some interesting insight

[cerulean harness]

‘Twas me

[cedar creek]

Ya I thought so

It’s genuinely interesting to hear y’all’s side outside of the pvp discord tbh

[cerulean harness]

We’re just some dudes trying to enjoy the game like everyone else 🙃

[cedar creek]

Sure, but I still stand firm in my thoughts that if chiv was repolled without being grouped y’all would have it

Idk if it left a bad taste in people’s mouths tho

[long dock]

Nah alot of people complained changing the forced exp drop to an optional lamp like it genuinely makes any difference

[cedar creek]

Again you can say it doesn’t, but it still got more votes percentage wise this time around

And the wild outcry was the group

[cerulean harness]

Just confused by this tbh. I experience the imbalance between rigour accounts and 75-82 att zerks every single day. It’s insane lol. And there are tons of very good players that play in this 90-100 cb bracket

Combat level does not represent skill

[cedar creek]

If it would fail a third time without being grouped I would give you guys the spite vote case

[cerulean harness]

LOL preach

[cedar creek]

Combat level doesn’t represent skill for sure, but again it’s the decision you made with your account

[long dock]

I genuinely believe it would of passed if it was just a new prayer people just forcing to keep things the same, hence why I made a post about a new ones from the other giants if you have seen

[cerulean harness]

Already did fail a third time. See Humble Chivalry (which I thought was a bad idea lore-wise and actually voted against it)

[cedar creek]

If it wasn’t grouped yes

[cedar creek]

I completely forgot about humble chivalry

[cerulean harness]

For the best probably 😂 humble piety as well

[cedar creek]

Oh it was emirs arena

[cerulean harness]

Yeah what a catastrophe that was

[cedar creek]

Man that’s such a good place to put actual rewards in if Jagex cared

[long dock]

Ye I didn't like Humble makes no sense being able to use it in PvP but not on PvM

[cerulean harness]

Reward system needs a bit of work but yeah agree. So much potential. But if the rewards are cool/useful in any way, people will vote against it saying “they’re forcing me” so yeah

[cerulean harness]

Same - I think that’s actually why I voted against it. Huge bandaid

[cedar creek]

Regardless I hope pkers and pvmers can come to an agreement on things eventually. I think Jagex needs to do a better job with the 2 and I think getting rid of the echo chamber that the pvp discord was is a step in the right direction

Both sides are gonna have to give, but how you determine that and who determines that is a wildly loaded thought

[long dock]

Well now we are getting DeadEye and Mystic Vigour so I believe there has to be some Melee equivalent forcefully done or it's gonna be Hella weird

[cerulean harness]

Loved that discord tho 😦 got some great changes to the game through that channel

[cedar creek]

And deadeye and mystic vigour are gonna give yall more dps than chiv would😂

[long dock]

Legit

[cedar creek]

I hope you can see their logic as to why they shut it down tho

[cedar creek]

I will not deny there’s spite voters, hell I was one of them until I learned that it’s almost impossible to die with the current pj timer

Or if you step foot in multi but that’s kinda asking for it

I truly wish Jagex would give one more poll tho with just chivalry from titans. Nothing else grouped.

[long dock]

Look at my post about leaving chivalry alone but making a new's one from obor and bryo to match

Really keeps it all in line imo and actually would of been nice for leagues for people not taking arcane Grimoire

[cedar creek]

Shame it got locked I just read it

If they’re going with royal titans adding obor and byro to that list wouldn’t be a bad idea tbh. Fits with the theme.

[long dock]

https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/1hh8wud/if_we_dont_want_to_touch_chivalry_at_all_the_new/ made a Reddit post and actually got positivity

[cedar creek]

Crazy it didn’t get mass downvoted on Reddit

I agree with the key thing, if you make it the same drop rate as essence and club I think that’s too high for an untradeable

[long dock]

Yeah, anyway will just have to see what they do with it all

[cedar creek]

Yeah for sure

Glad we could have an okay conversation and agree on something at the end

[long dock]

Likewise

[vale island]

Just give pvp arena, SW, LMS and NMZ a shared reward shop. Poof no more complaints.

[cerulean harness]

This is what I mean by uninformed voters. Not trying to be a jerk… just is what it is

[vale island]

You either have a democratic system or you don’t. No use losing sleep over it.

[cerulean harness]

They closed it because they banned RoT the same day. Apart from that, wasn’t as focused as they wanted it and they couldn’t keep up with tons of messages. Kind of like this tbh. They’re not going to read this lol (the entirety of this thread)

[cedar creek]

The notion I got from goblins message was he wanted it to be more open forum vs echo chamber

[cedar creek]

Yeah, which is why the pvp only poll got so much backlash

[vale island]

I think most people are neutral on PvP but strongly dislike pkers, so if Jagex wants to push out PvP updates outside PvP worlds and BH they should focus on minigames. The difficult part is the reward space, but as long as it’s not just more dps for wildy pkers it should pass.
(this was also a factor in wrathmaw failing)

[fluid fjord]

which podcast episode was that btw? Title plz, I'd be interested to check it out

[cedar creek]

Not sure I just remember it being posted in the pvp discord @cerulean harness would prob know

Belle was miserable to listen to but sae/2nd base had some good talks

[cerulean harness]

Not really how I read that, but nonetheless, monitoring an “always on,” sometimes unfocused and vent-like chat channel was definitely super time consuming for them

[cerulean harness]

https://youtu.be/-RLaf3AFBG8?si=Pe1QYmPbbZfCpamm

9 months ago sheesh

[long dock]

The thing is though Wildy Pkers are already maxed or meds so Chiv wouldn't have changed anything there nor give any more dps🤣 Wrathmaw genuinely could of been fun but they should of just labeled it as a meat block combat dummy rather then a boss, that you hit whilst fighting others, not make it any sort of meaningful mechanically designed pvm encounter with it's goal is just to bring people together to fight so no one is forced to go there. It was never ment to be a type of bossing/PvMing.

[vale island]

All kinds of people running around

And pkers are such a hated group that the mere association might be enough for people to vote no

[bleak vine]

yeah they fucked up badly by not hard committing to making its rewards not appear in the collection log, not having any CAs, and giving reward examples that pvmers wanted while refusing to say they wouldn't do that

I think it was a good idea ruined by them having no idea how to make wildy bossing content and rewards that isn't designed to draw in people who resent doing it

I think the basic idea of recreating dmm breaches in some way in the maingame was noble

[bleak vine]

I think it's really rough that pvp balance changes like prayer reqs, quest reqs, and gear reqs are all so inextricably tied to pking because of the wildy

pker buffs mean functional pvmer/skiller survivability nerfs, meaning things get voted no because people are actively incentivized to vote against it, spite isn't even a necessary factor

despite the actual changes being made from the perspective of pvp bracket balance, they get voted on for their pking side effects, and I can't think of any solution to avoid this so long as the wildy exists

E: well, I mean, there's balancing pvp minigames and pvp worlds differently than regular ones, but people hate that even if it's a solution

[cerulean harness]

They’re just put in an impossible box. Make the content give good rewards, but not too good as to draw in too many people. But also draw people in so it’s active.

Rewards tend to hold good value if they have use in the wider game. But don’t make the rewards useful in the wider game because that “forces” people. But also don’t put alchs as rewards because bots bad.

Derp.

[bleak vine]

It's a mess

[cerulean harness]

The greater community has tied their hands too much. Just let them cook ffs

[fluid fjord]

Yeah the low-quality messages and questions on there as well was crazy, some of the people who posted there had 0 respect for developers time, sadly 😢

I saw several messages there with questions that tagged Jmods with questions that were easily posssible to figure out via the Wiki and some that were even common knowledge for experienced players.
In some cases I even PM'ed the correct answer with information and source to the people asking the questions and they still didn't care to delete the question and blocked me for being a "know-it-all" or something xD....

[ebon lance]

personally i've felt like most of mankeds proposals have been low quality

wrathmaw, chivalry, zombie pirates, wilderness agility, multi boss buffs, fountain of rune, it feels like there isn't nearly as much thought put into them as other new content we get, probably because other jmods have no vision at all for the wilderness

[cedar creek]

This is the problem I see too. I agree that the other jmods (including goblin) seem like they have absolutely no idea what to do with it. Every “revival” they’ve tried has, in my opinion, been a pretty big failure. I don’t know how you get non pvpers engaged with this content other than making the rewards so catastrophically unbalanced, which has shown to be wildly unpopular because of the “feeling forced to participate in pvp” situation.

[ebon lance]

i suppose this is where we, the players are supposed to fill in the gap with creative ideas, if the wildy resource area rework becomes a thing i could see things turning around since it looked very promising

[cerulean harness]

Mankeds hands are so incredibly tied. And yes, I don’t think any of the other JMods have any vision whatsoever for the Wildy or PvP, at least that they’ve communicated. Sarnie had some concept for a PvP minigame maybe 2 gamejams ago but didn’t hear much more about it sadly

Gotta give credit where credits due, though. Bounty Hunter, Wildy Agility Course, and various QOL improvements have been great

[ebon lance]

yes, this might be true but that doesn't change my point, wrathmaw is a perfect example, the rewards were just buffed verisions of old items and the boss was just described a ball of meat with little mechanics, now compare this to content being proposed outside of wildy, new items even if theyre rather weak, the bosses have new mechanics and are just overall much more immersive

it also feel like the "qol" has mostly just been to throw more money at old content, which is not sustainable, they should also stop trying to change chivalry, instead adding something like the mithril skin proposed above, i think more people would enjoy new items and content rather than ones that are super rewarding gold wise but are unenjoyable

[cerulean harness]

Again, hands are tied. If they introduced this complex boss with intricate mechanics in a PvP-enabled zone, how do you think that would work?

[ebon lance]

they don't have to have crazy mechanics, callisto and vetion are already great, they described the fantasy of those though in their blogs ,but brushed aside any mechanics to focus on the rewards in the wrathmaw blog, which were also just buffs of old items from completely unrelated areas of the game, which also isnt fun at all.

[cerulean harness]

The intent was to make those specific items more useful in PvP, while driving up the price since they were old items that are way undervalued since they never leave the game

But I agree I think they could’ve done better

[vale island]

The patchwork approach to wildy has left it a scattered collection of disconnected skilling and pvm areas with no lore tying anything together. They should really just scrap the whole region and start over. Make it a pvp zone fine, but make it cohesive. Lean into the ancient teleports. Maybe even have some quests in there with quest bosses (instanced during the quest ofc or it will never pass).

[cerulean harness]

The polling system constrains them to such a high degree

[vale island]

Because above anything else the wilderness is simply boring

[ebon lance]

the ferox enclave and the lore they tied that into with the hunters and wilderness bosses was great, they've just been fumbling all over the place this year

[vale island]

Yeah agree, ferox was good. More of that would be good.

[balmy summit]

While the overall discussion of pking in OSRS has been great, please steer this conversation back to the topic of the suggestion.

This thread is about adjusting chivalry to 18/18/10 (atk/str/def) and introducing a new prayer called "Rivalry" that would give 18/18/5 unlockable as a drop from a giant boss.

[fluid fjord]

Just to clarify, 'Rivalry' is proposed to be at 5% def matching the other tier 4 prayers, so 18/18/5, whereas Chivalry would then be +5% at 18/18/10.

There have been discussions about higher offensive power with lower defence as well, such as 20/20/0 or 20/20/-5.

But I am very sad that @long dock's suggestion has been completely lost now in the midst of this 500 messages thread and his suggestion thread was locked. He has a reddit post here https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/1hh8wud/if_we_dont_want_to_touch_chivalry_at_all_the_new/?rdt=38011
Could I please ask the mods to allow him to make his proposal like that Reddit post with the image? It is a very different solution than what my thread here is about and it doesn't look fair nor right to close his proposal

[balmy summit]

Sure ill amend that to my last post.

While sad, it was a similar if not identical suggestion to yours. His extra content like the images can of course be posted here and used for your suggestion since both are advocating for another prayer from the giants and thats what the visuals are for. These threads are not just for Devs to have a look at but for the community to come up with and improve upon ideas collaboratively.

Unfortunately his suggestion is still far too similar to yours to warrant another thread. It's still identical to the one that was previously locked as well. The "additional prayer" situation escalated to the point where there were three threads with basically the same suggestion being bumped to the top of the channel at the same time, several times. That's just being very unfair to every other suggestions on the channel. The actual numbers can and will likely change as the discussion continues, the root of the idea has been the same across these threads.

[fluid fjord]

"similar if not identical suggestion to yours"

• Are you honestly, actually making this claim about this current 'Rivalry' thread versus his post here (https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/1hh8wud/if_we_dont_want_to_touch_chivalry_at_all_the_new/?rdt=38011) ?

I would please ask you to reconsider more carefully. If the differences between these two proposals are not very clear, I think you should read over them again.

I would please ask a different <@&385422009930219520> to take a look at this and consider whether @balmy summit is too biased on this subject (as can be seen that he was the first to make arguments against @long dock's thread in the first place as well, see https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1317752564204179456) in his decision to close the other proposals for Tier 4 melee prayer, as in Gary's proposal it was for the other bosses and to not do anything with Chivalry at all, which is a very different proposal, isn't it...?

[cedar creek]

🤓 ☝️

[balmy summit]

Yes I am making that claim. I've said so here and in the previous threads. I've made this very very clear now that the suggestions are too similar to warrant separate threads.

The decision to lock the other threads was made collaboratively by myself and other mods. It was not a decision made by me on a whim, I'm just the one that enacted it.

Posting the reddit thread multiple times will not change this.

[fluid fjord]

That claim is blatantly false/untrue, it's very easily falsifiable for anyone to see by reading this thread and comparing it to the reddit post I linked or Garyy's thread that I also linked in the previous comment.

You must at the very least admit that you cannot sincerely stand by this part of the sentence: "if not identical suggestion". Identical? Hello, sir? Why are you exaggarating the similarity into a dishonest discourse?

<@&385422009930219520> Please look at what Jolly Pingu is claiming here and consider whether he imay be too biased, as I have showed and argued in this discussion, to close Garyy's thread. Even if it was a group decision, I ask you to please reconsider as it would be reasonable to do given this context..
I would ask for Garyy to be allowed to make a new thread with the graphics he made in the Reddit post (because even if his old thread would be opened it's not possible to add image retrospectively in edit anyhow).

[long dock]

Dont worry about it @fluid fjord, I appreciate the support but i can also understand why the Chat Mods have done it to keep it tidy, the line of what is different enough is a grey area but imo I did do something different, 2 new prayers including a defence one which no one has before, whilst also not touching any existing and specifically laying out a full plan on how they can be obtained, work and keeping everything in line. All of which has generally been received in a positive way.

Regardless I'm sure if a JMod would have ever seen it they would have by now or would still do anyway, so it's all good although I do wish there was some sort of recognition confirmation if they have so we can leave it at that and see what happens next in their hands.

[cerulean harness]

Recognition confirmation would be nice. Otherwise it’s like shouting into the dark

[potent raven]

@fluid fjord Hey there Swimz, the moderator team did in fact discuss about locking 2/3 the threads and compile all the suggestions made to one forum post as they were all very similar and considered duplicate posts. When we have such similar posts, it buries other game suggestions that people work as well. The other posts will remain closed. You can copy and paste the previous initial messages into this post if you would to

[fluid fjord]

Yeah well I think it also matters to get the visibility for the designs to the players as well, not only Jmods. But yeah I do understand that too, tho maybe 2 threads instead of 3 would be a good compromise?

[fluid fjord]

I understand https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1312298556295614534 and https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1317752564204179456 were quite similar and I think it makes sense to converge those two, but when comparing those to the 'Rivalry' suggestion of this thread it should be obvious that those approaches are quite distinct from this one. At the very least they are not"identical" as was claimed above to somehow be an "accurate/honest" description of the facts....

I don't think the chivalry rework into a defence only prayer would work in practice and it probably wouldn't pass a poll either if polled, so I think the only realistic/relevant proposals to consider versus each other that we have ended up with after a significant amount of discussions are this current post with my 'Rivalry' proposal and Garyy's post with scrolls from all giants bosses. (https://discord.com/channels/324132423636090880/1317752564204179456).

Unfortunately, he hadn't made his great graphics until after he posted, so he couldn't retroactively add the picture to the top of the thread which I think a lot of people might resonate very much with and I'd hope for him to have a chance to post it with his image attached like his reddit post so we can see what people here think about it?

[long dock]

If they are going to look at reworking the older Giant's bosses key system would be a perfect time to implement the all Giant Titans prayers as an additional reward.
https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/1hh8wud/if_we_dont_want_to_touch_chivalry_at_all_the_new/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

[fluid fjord]

**I’ve started losing faith in getting Chivalry reworked(or new tier 4 offensive one-click melee prayer) so I’ll let my Pure and Zerk rot in F2P now.

It doesn’t feel worth bonding or playing those accs if they don’t get Chivalry rework or a tier 4 one-click melee offensive prayer along with Deadeye and Mystic Vigour. Back to playing on my Med lvl, or if I lose all hope I’ll make my zerker into a 50/60attk 70def low combat Med maxing out at 100/103 combat with rigour/augury and piety instead.**

I made them both on the reasonable assumption that Chivalry or tier 4 melee prayer rework with a one-click offensive melee prayer would be coming soon enough, but with how slow this seems to be happening and looking at how community is still pushing back on these necessary rebalancing reworks for PvP, my useable account variety is effectively reduced to the max med at 75 def with piety/rigour/augury.

Also strongly considering to make the 91-93 zerker +7 combat lvls to a lvl 100 med at 51att and 70def, to capitalize on the imbalance of how prayers are locked behind 70 defence as it is necessary to be able to compete in wildy anyway, especially until some tier 4 prayers can help a bit with the balance. Two clicks every time I wack with melee has been ridiculously tedious tho, which is a big part of why it’s just unplayable..

Too bad people don’t really know what they are voting for(or against in this case with Chivalry failing), they think the pkers will kill them more if there is no chivalry for pures/zerks but the thing actually happening is that everyone abandons pures/zerks variety in favor of playing a low combat 70 def accounts with piety/rigour/augury instead which is a lot more deadly and most irons who are downvoting and voting no to «naysay» to PvP are actually worse off in this situation since they’re within the Meds attack range of 70-80+ combat (depending on wildy lvl)…

GF balance, GF variety, I guess we just gotta join em if we can’t beat em. 🙃

[long dock]

Yeah with everything that is happening over there with ads and lack of PvP rebalances happening after so long, i don't think I'll be playing anymore either, don't have the same desire, it's been a blast but good things always have to have an end.

[fluid fjord]

Oh wow, you’re gonna fully quit?
Well, sounds like it is a right time for you to quit(break, lol cuz you’ll be back eventually..) but for me I’m gonna still be playing but I’ll only play on the account builds I have with piety and rigour (lvl 99-103 med) until changes are implemented for offensive melee prayer (chivalry / one-click T4 like Deadeye)

[fluid fjord]

To sum up the details of my suggestion in this thread:
Piety(Tier 5 prayer): 20% att, 23% str, 25% def
(drains 1 point per 1.5 seconds)
Chivalry(Tier 4.5 prayer): 18% att, 18% str, 5% def+15% with Steel Skin
(Drains 1 point per 3 seconds, with Steel Skin = 1 point per 1.5 seconds)
Rivalry(Tier 4 prayer): 18% att, 18% str, 0% def+15% with Steel Skin
(Drains 1 point per 3 seconds, with Steel Skin = 1 point per 1.5 seconds)

Optionally Rivalry and Chivalry +2% offensives at the cost of 5% defense each, as per suggested by @tame marten.

@long dock's suggestion for Obor/Bryophyta scrolls can be found discussed somewhere in this current thread, as well as in his locked post here:
#1317752564204179456 message

[fluid fjord]

#game-news message
So now the question is: Have they chosen a solution they will implement with next week update or will the tier 4 melee prayer come like years later..?

[onyx socket]

if they had it would be in the blog

[vestal steppe]

There’s no chance we see anything with prayers other than Mystic Vigor and Deadeye in next update

[fluid fjord]

Not necessarily, there are often adjustment for release and how an update actually releases is tied to the release blog the day of the release.
The devblogs before that are not usually updated until the final released changes are updated 🙂

[fluid fjord]

I disagree; I’m confident they will at the very least write some discussion of proposals for how they are thinking to move forward with tier 4 melee prayer/chivalry

[vale island]

They might, I very much doubt such chivalry changes would be made unpolled

If they discuss their current plans that would be nice though

[vestal steppe]

Yeah that’s what I meant

Actual game changes

[fluid fjord]

With my suggestion of introducing ‘Rivalry’, a new tier 4 melee prayer as a weaker Chivalry; polling is not necessary at all as it doesn’t change chivalry or old content. Just adds a tier 4 melee prayer to fill the tier 4 melee gap with the other new prayers 🙂

Would take up same slot in prayerbook as Chivalry tho, so a small menu interface text adjustment would be done tho😄

[long dock]

Now the 2 new prayers of the Giants, Deadeye & Mystic Vigour are in the game and are set at the rates they are I've been thinking what we could do next with the melee prayers. If they aren't going to change Chivalry's req but willing to add new ones they could do:

Lvl53 Prayer
"Mithril Skin" - Steel Skin Upgrade
18% Defence
Bryo drops scroll

Lvl54 Prayer
"Supreme Brawn" - Ultimate Strength Upgrade
18% Attack 18% Strength
Obor drops scroll

Lvl60 Prayer Lvl65 Defence
"Chivalry"
18% Attack 20% Strength 5% Defence
Stays locked behind Kings Ransom

They all have half the drain rate of Piety when activated on their own.

This then gives everything a technical use with stats relevant for the prayer level they posses.

Realistically because the way Melee Prayer progression is so scuffed from an 07 backup, there isn't many other options on content level release places unless they moved Piety to a raid scroll and then let everyone do the Knights waves for Chivalry.

[fluid fjord]

"This then gives everything a technical use with stats relevant for the prayer level they posses."

• Yeah, this is an elegant solution overall! I see you buffed Chivalry to have it make sense with the 60 prayer and 65 def reqs. which makes good sense (funfact btw: It's effectively 66 def req. because of the exp rewards. Also side-note, I think they could reduce Chivalry req. to 60 def).

This would be brilliant additions to the Bryophyta and Obor key-reworks they have announced to do in upcoming months. 🙂
I could drop my 'Rivalry' idea for that, tho I had started getting a bit attached to the idea.. 😦

Could also consider whether Bryo and Obor should guarantee the prayer scroll drops at a certain KC (looks like Royal Titans don't have that, but I feel like it could make sense if they did at like 100 kc or so)

[fluid fjord]

Update: I've made significant adjustments/edits to the post and now listed what I think are the 3 most viable solutions for the tier 4 melee prayer and called them "solution 1, 2 and 3".
Please let me know if anyone can think of a better way to format this or if there's something I should add?

[wheat kraken]

I really like this. As a player who focuses pvp but who has been learning raids and other pvm, it's been really nice griding out the new scrolls with buddies on niche accounts, and the new bosses are great content.

I do think that the release of T4 melee prayers would be fantastic if it coincided with reworks of these bosses to add a little more challenge and whatnot.

[valid rune]

PvP is such a lost opportunity in OSRS... It's such a shame all the spite and toxicity against it limited growth this much...

[long dock]

Yeah it's a sad time when we can't fix balancing issues in a vital area of the game which PvP is all because in the current era, there are less players engaging in the activity compared to ironman and PvM meaning polls are one sided. This proves polls are flawed and just favours a higher audience, if 20k PvPers just came back to the game we would have enough to fix the issues, they either need to force the balancing through or poll it purely to people who engage in the activity or remove polls completely.

[valid rune]

I miss so many PvP polls because I don't have my accounts bonded

All because of the lack of PvP development

I'm sure I'm not the only one in the same situation

[sonic ledge]

I think PvP is lacking the scurrius-type encounters to get people in to high-end PvP, because right now PvP feels "high-skill"

like a PvP area with low-intensity interactions, kinda like when people used scimmies/dds

[valid rune]

I also think more PvP players actually vote skip on content that doesn't concern them in contrast to no

[sonic ledge]

it doesn't concern them because they don't engage, and it becomes a cycle
Edit: misread, I was thinking PvM players voting no/skip on PvP

[fluid fjord]

Oh shit, something happened whilst I was editing the original message text, could a Mod please check what error happened here and copy the last version to me, please?

I've worked so much on that text 😦

[fluid fjord]

Well, unfortunately Discord has a limitation so that it's not possible to edit back in the original post, so I will lock this post and make a new one instead.

I will add a link to this post in it, so that the discussions and reflections in this post will be accessible for reviewing. 🙂

In the next message I will paste in the original post that got lost which will become a new post:

**Solution 1: 'Rivalry'

Rework Chivalry as Proposed in the Royal Titans Blog:**
But increase its innate defence bonus to 10% (up from the blog's suggestion of 5%). This makes Chivalry a proper tier 4.5 prayer.

Keep Same Unlocking Requirements for Chivalry:
Leave it as a reward from completing Knight Waves Training Ground, effectively requiring level 66 Defence.

Introduce 'Rivalry', a Weaker Version of Chivalry:
A new tier 4 melee prayer, designed to complement Deadeye and Mystic Vigour for a full set of tier 4 prayers. Unlockable through Torn Rivalrous Prayer Scroll dropped by the Royal Titans. Same stats and drain-rate as Chivalry, but 5% less defence.
It would occupy the same prayerbook slot as Chivalry, and when Chivalry is unlocked, Rivalry is overridden; similar to how Eagle Eye is replaced by Deadeye.

Concept Design for 'Rivalry':
#1312269466369003570 message

**Solution 2: "Knight Waves 0.5"
#1306794223294484541 message

Solution 3: "Bryophyta and Obor scrolls"
#1338966030126678076 message **

Context:
The most popular reasons stated/upvoted on Reddit for why people voted no on Chivalry rework in the Royal Titans poll were:

• Changing Holy Grail rewards => exp lamps
• Bundling exp lamp changes in the same question (therefore voting no either because; one of the aspects in the bundle are disagreed with, or because bundling questions is bad polling)
• "We don't like PvP/Wilderness and we vote no for that"
  The first two issues can be easily addressed in a new proposal like the 3 listed solutions show.