It is both less fun to play and less authentic for the worlds to be so empty. The average world had about 1000 back then and 300 was considered extremely low. I think the ideal solution is 2-3 members worlds that rotate locations or something similar. even 1 world for everyone would be an improvement unless we get a big spike when special attacks drop. Y’all are doing a great job with the server btw if I sound too whiny.
2 Likes
Agreed, current world count is good for contested spots but I’d rather see more players and unique metas
If I had to guess, it’s not so much about making too many worlds as it is about making geographically dispersed server locations to make the experience more enjoyable for players of all origin. To really feel the effects of what you are proposing (less worlds), try joining a world that is geographically the furthest from where you reside. For example, if you live in USA, try joining a world in India. Then you will feel how poor the game experience is.
Tbh I never pay attention to what world I join and I’ve never felt it’s an issue. Granted I don’t do any tick manip, but even when I hotspot off my phone and get 500 ping, the game is playable
I think right now it is logical that a lot of people are taking breaks from the game, 2004 is pretty basic and has no end game. If you played the server during free to play you would remember how fierce the resource competition was. Right now a lot of people are just falling off as they get bored and burnt out naturally.
I think it’s safer we keep the worlds up between patch cycles so there there are more available worlds to hop to, to avoid resource competition. Rather than try to do something like adding and removing servers as the server hits and highs and lows throughout the year.
3 Likes
I would agree if worlds were free, let’s not forget Pazaz isn’t rich
I believe this is partially what donations go to, I know some close friends of his have also assisted with hosting costs.
Obviously if the player counts never return some of them could be shut down, but I think it’s still pretty early and we haven’t had a major update since legends release. I think we will have to see how updates like spec, new quests, etc spike the player count.
Would just hate to be back down to a few worlds and suddenly 2000 people are on fighting for coal.
Are worlds in the same region actually hosted on different machines? I doubt it. RuneScape is a pretty lightweight game to host, all things considered. I would bet that the worlds in the same region are actually covered under a single server’s hosting fees.
Without a change to how shops work that would not be authentic I don’t think getting rid of worlds is a great idea. Shops are constantly sold out already and there are many items that can only be obtained, or can only be obtained in reasonable quantities from shops. That along with how insanely crowded popular spots like hellhounds, chaos druids and blue drags already are would make the game much more frustrating.
If I want to see players I go to world 2, almost always someone around no matter what I’m doing there.
But there being massive competition for all resources is more like how it was in the original game, and let’s be real, makes the game better.
1 Like
I strongly disagree. IMO Nothing will make player count drop more than every spot being loaded to the brim and you will end up with the same amount of players per world as now, with less worlds.
Maybe if there was some worthwhile group content I could see the benefit but I’m not seeing the demand for gnomeball or fishing trawler.
Thanks for making this post. Now they’ve cut the number of worlds in half.
Makes it really annoying to find blue dragon spots that aren’t taken.
Smh…
oh no how will i make 400k an hour world hopping now? 
2 Likes
You posted this and then three hours later our worlds get cut in half. Are we really doing reddit style complaining that changes the game for everybody? I’m already struggling to find a good world to kill blue dragons, fire giants, moss giants, mining gold, buying essentials like feathers and basic runes. Thanks for posting this and getting into the developers heads. I hate how player complaints have become the norm for how the game is shaped. Didn’t pizzaz say the worse part of osrs is the polling? Thanks a lot. Way to bring the community together…
This is the best response as always cynical saint. Reasonable way to look at it. If we are halfing worlds because people feel lonely and want to see more people running around… what exactly are we really doing here?
yeah dude 40 players per world is overcrowded! the devs should set the population limit per world to 10, and also add ironman mode!
Definitely just a coincidence. Pazaz was likely planning this from the get-go. I’d assume he’s also planned when specs come out to bring more worlds back potentially if player count rises. As well as when KQ comes out and then Slayer.
Personally, I’m not a fan of the recent change, it creates a false sense of population without actually making the world feel more alive. The community seems split: newer players often prefer strict adherence to the original 2004 update timeline (which I used to enjoy too), while many of us in the endgame would rather see content rolled out more quickly to keep things engaging.
I totally understand that this is a passion project, and honestly, you guys have done an amazing job keeping the spirit of 2004 alive. The attention to detail and commitment to the original timeline is super admirable.
That said, I think one thing that could really help the player base stay engaged is having a public date or roadmap for the next big update. Right now, it feels like we’re floating a bit. Without a clear goal to work toward, even the most dedicated players start to lose momentum.
We’re currently in May 2004, and based on the timeline, Priest in Peril (June 29, 2004) would be the next major content drop, unlocking Morytania and expanding the game world significantly. If we had a confirmed release date for that (or even a ballpark window), I think it would really energize the community.
It’s not about rushing things, just about giving players something to anticipate. You’ve built something awesome here, and a little bit of structure or communication about what’s next could make it even better.
1 Like
Hi,
I didn’t see this post until now - there are pros and cons to scaling worlds down. My utmost concern is accessibility and that’s why we have such a variety of regions across the world.
When I launched members content I added regions and then doubled it because I wasn’t sure how many players we would be accommodating. I reduced it earlier yesterday - we’re still a few worlds above what we had in f2p.
Now that things are back to normal, extra worlds are maintenance overhead for me, having to deploy updates in sync, monitor the worlds, there’s extra labor outside running the server software.
I understand resource competition is a concern and don’t mean to lock anyone out of playing the game. If we find that we haven’t gotten a good balance, I can keep playing around with it. Money is a factor sure, but more importantly is people coming together to experience the game while we have it. Some purists may insist on having less worlds even after my reduction, but I maintain that we need the geographic availability.
I’ve got no issue with 20-player worlds BTW – by my standard it’s incredible to see multiple worlds at 150+ regularly!
Thank you all for the time spent enjoying history with us 
More updates to come. We’re working diligently behind the scenes fine-tuning and preparing for more content drops.
12 Likes
lol good job m8. now i. cant buy runes, back to the ess mines i go!!
1 Like