Hello everyone,

yesterday our first community poll was finished. This morning I woke up early to check the results and let you guys know the primary results as soon as possible.

Due to family obligations today I won't be starting working on the implementation or server changes, just want to communicate out few things on some of the matters related to the questionnaire and few other things that should be talked about in public: rules enforcement, toxic chat and name censors.

To begin with I want to apologise for the lack of moderation on the name censor, chat policing, we were giving priority to other issues, but we will do our best to start making RSCR2 a nice place to play and we will get on it very quickly in the new work week.

Wilderness Questionnaire results

We have a total of 216 responses to the questionnaire which is an amazing count. Below are the full results for each question.

Wilderness IP limit

On the Wilderness questionnaire the decision is fortunately extremely easy.

Q1 — IP limit preference

• 2IP — 81 votes (37.5%)
• 1IP — 78 votes (36.1%)
• 5IP (current) — 30 votes (13.9%)
• 3IP — 27 votes (12.5%)

Q2 — IP  limit dealbreaker

• Current 5IP is not restrictive enough, I would leave if it stays this way — 106 votes (49.1%)
• IP limit won't affect my decision to play either way — 71 votes (32.9%)
• 1–2IP limit would make me leave, too restrictive — 24 votes (11.1%)
• 3IP limit would make me leave, too restrictive — 15 votes (6.9%)

The community sentiment is clear — multi-logging should be restricted in the Wilderness. Since 2IP is more of a compromise we will go with that decision with high confidence. We chose 2IP because it gives solo players a meaningful improvement while keeping some flexibility — you can still bring a skilling alt or a second PK build. It is not a restriction that punishes legitimate multi-account play. It is a restriction that ends 5-account pile-ons.

Decision

Effective now - wilderness will be switching to 2IP with a short grace period allowing 3IP (live), so you can get used to the limits.

On the freeform answers there were many suggestions for supporting mechanics to make fights fairer. We are not picking an exact mechanic how we will be making sure the fights are more fair, this will be done in the near future.

Q3 — Split Wilderness zones

• No — just pick one rule and apply it everywhere — 84 votes (38.9%)
• No — it would split an already small player base too thin — 46 votes (21.3%)
• Neutral — I'd play either way — 45 votes (20.8%)
• Yes — I would use the restricted zone — 36 votes (16.7%)
• Yes — I would use the unrestricted zone — 5 votes (2.3%)

60.2% voted against splitting the Wilderness and there were lots of players being neutral. We agree — one rule, applied everywhere, consistently.

Q4 — 1v1 opt-in system

• Yes — I would use this — 69 votes (31.9%)
• No — Wilderness should be anything goes — 65 votes (30.1%)
• Yes — but only if there's a dedicated zone for it — 54 votes (25.0%)
• Neutral — 28 votes (13.0%)

This one was close to a three-way split. 56.9% support the idea in some way and 13% are neutral. I personally think this would be an interesting experiment and would make Wilderness more accessible to the very casual players. The codebase for such fights already has been well developed for Deadman mode on REV1, so logic for this is basically ready. I think we should give it a go and see what happens.

Other questionnaire questions

The remaining questions were freeform. Below is a summary of the main themes from each:

Q5 — Should we consider any other Wilderness restrictions?

90 players answered this. The most common suggestions were: reducing multi-logging abuse through login and logout timers, PJ timers to make fights more skill-based, preventing players from immediately logging in on a fresh account after dying, and stopping the range-and-log griefing pattern. A smaller number suggested zoned or depth-based IP rules such as stricter limits above level
30 wilderness.

Q6 — What would bring you to Wilderness regularly?

124 players answered this. The top themes were: fair fights with no multi-logging pile-ons, more NPC spawns and training spots to reduce congestion, better loot and drop incentives to justify the risk, wilderness bosses, and community PK events. The message was consistent — the wilderness needs to feel worth going to, not just fairer when you're there.

Q7 — If you've played RSC private servers before and quit, what was the main reason?

132 players answered this. The top themes were: multi-logging and multi-IP abuse (26 mentions), content stagnation and nothing to do at endgame (20 mentions), staff conduct and favoritism (18 mentions), economy collapse or inflation (18 mentions), content drifting too far from original RSC (15 mentions), and playerbase declining until the server died (15 mentions).

Q8 — What decision do you think makes or breaks a private server?

121 players answered this. Staff conduct and favoritism was the single most cited answer at 27 mentions, ahead of multi-logging abuse (17 mentions), XP rates being too high or low (12 mentions), economy mismanagement (11 mentions), and toxic community with no moderation (11 mentions). The message here was clear — how staff behave matters more than any individual game mechanic decision.

Q9 — Are you worried or annoyed by anything in particular on RSCR2 right now?

130 players answered this. The top concerns were: toxic and racist global chat (around 35 mentions), botting and autoclickers (around 30 mentions), training spots being overcrowded (around 25 mentions), too many IPs in the Wilderness (around 20 mentions), and rune and arrow supply being too scarce to support PK (around 15 mentions).

Q10 — What are the biggest bugs or flaws on RSCR2 you want to see fixed?

91 players answered this. The most reported issues were: auto-walk and pathing bugs, magic and ranging feel being off from authentic RSC, mobile and Android client issues, NPC aggro and behavior not matching original RSC, and the bank search bar capturing keyboard input unexpectedly. Many players also noted the game was running well overall and had few major complaints.

Q11 — What would you most like to see added to the server?

122 players answered this. By far the most requested additions were: P2P content and members area, staking and dueling, more NPC spawns and training spots, wilderness bosses, and rares. Slayer was mentioned by several players as a long-term content addition they'd like to see. The general tone was to keep additions true to RSC rather than adding custom content that changes the feel of the game.

Q12 — What content do you look forward to on P2P?

122 players answered this. The most anticipated content was: member skills especially Herblaw, Thieving and Fletching, staking and dueling, dragons and dragon gear, quests including Legends, and more training spots to spread the playerbase out. A small number said they preferred F2P to stay as long as possible and were not rushing P2P.

Q13 — When should we release Members content?

105 players answered this. The results broke down roughly as follows:

• ASAP or within days — around 28% of responses
• 1 to 2 months — around 38% of responses
• 3 to 4 months — around 22% of responses
• 6 months or longer — around 12% of responses

The majority view is 1 to 2 months. The most common argument for sooner was overcrowding of F2P training spots and players running out of content. The most common argument for later was preserving the F2P magic and giving casual players time to catch up before the map expands.

Thank you!

Thank you to everyone who took the time to fill out the questionnaire. 216 responses is an exceptional turnout for a server at this stage. Many of you went well beyond the multiple choice questions and wrote detailed freeform answers — some of them essays. Every single response was read thoroughly and the data collected here will be used in the coming weeks to shape the direction of the server. That kind of engagement makes it significantly easier for us to make decisions we can stand behind, and it means a lot that you care enough about this server to put your thoughts into words. We will keep listening.

Game rule enforcement and chat moderation

When launching the server we made the mistake of not implementing a proper name censor or any automated chat enforcement. As a result we have been receiving a growing number of complaints about players violating the rules they agreed to when signing up and when running the client for the first time. Our community guidelines and in-game rules are clear on what is not allowed — the problem has been enforcement, not clarity.

Going forward we will be taking a more decisive approach. Rather than speaking to each player individually before issuing any punishment, we will be issuing mutes more readily and without prior warning when violations are clear. Mutes will apply to all characters owned by that player for 24 hours. Repeated offenses or mute evasion through new characters will result in longer mutes and escalating punishments.

This is a server populated mostly by adults who have been playing RSC for 20+ years — we are not aiming to moderate global chat to a family-friendly standard. What we will not tolerate is racism, targeted harassment, and names designed to offend.

We want to be building the game, fixing bugs and supporting legitimate players — not policing chat. The fastest way to get back to that is to make enforcement swift enough that it stops requiring our constant attention.

Name censor and inappropriate character names

Characters with names that violate our community guidelines will be suspended until renamed. The name change will be free and can be done directly through the character manager on the website.

Botting and automated play

At launch we made a deliberate decision to give players a grace period on automated play. We understood that dusting off an old script or tweaking a client is part of the culture for many returning RSC players, and we did not want to come out swinging on day one.

After one week of running the server it is clear that this approach has not worked. The majority of players we gave a pass to have become repeat offenders. We have been doing our best to only act when we have solid evidence, and to avoid hassling legitimate players over minor suspicion — but this is consuming too much of our time and the impact on the economy and on fair play is becoming impossible to ignore.

We are done playing cat and mouse. Effective immediately:

• If you are caught botting or using any form of automated play, you will receive a minimum one week ban.
• If the automation resulted in any economic gain — not just experience — across any of your characters, your bank and all associated character banks will be wiped before the ban is issued.
• Repeat offenses will result in a permanent ban with no appeal.

To be completely clear — auto-clicking is cheating. There is no grey area on this. Bot detection and enforcement runs 24/7. The absence of an admin online does not mean you are safe — if you are botting, the ban will catch up with you regardless of when it is spotted.

We are not looking to catch people out. If you are playing legitimately you have nothing to worry about. But if you are automating, the risk is now significant enough that we hope it is no longer worth it to you.