The main reason people wanted 2007scape is because its not rs3. There's no EOC, Broken training methods, or money grabbing. It just happened that 2007scape was the most favorable version of runescape people wanted to go back to.

That doesnt mean 2007 had it all right. Over time there have been alot of QOL to playability & new content. There are a few issues throughout the whole game that are widespoken, but they can effect the 2007load integrity of that skill if changes are made. And that integrity is uphelded and enforced. But overtime this will have a negative effect.

How to poll integrity buffs to skills at bottom

The simplest negative effect is it'll limit the rewards of new content even if the new content enhances and challenges the difficulty the enjoyment of said training method. My best example for this is the darkmeyer agility course. Although the course provides the greatest challenge and immersion the agility skill has yet to see. I would argue the experience rates should have highly challenged enhanced the meta more highly than it does now. But it has a saving grace because it does lightly challenge the xp/hr provide good gp/hr. If the challenge immersion this new course can later be respected maybe the xp/hr will be buffed later. Or a new more challenging immersive course can be added that could challenges the xp/hr meta.

Ill add that rooftop agility enhanced the gameplay by allowing a new different way to train agility, and even though it was so monotonous(wasnt immersive) still had new xp/hr metas arise from it.

The not so simple and highly more important negative effect, is that if you don't make integral changes to certain problematic skills/ aspects of the game, it'll lead to changes that don't solve the solution and only allow for small improvements those changes will be locked behind many requirements some too challenging for how marginal the gains are.

There are 3 skills that have this issue. Runecrafting, smithing, and slayer.

• Ill start with smithing because its the easiest to fix. lower existing level requirements for smithing by 10-20 starting with addy bars.(ofcourse lower requirement items like steel /mith will decrease slightly compared to addy and rune.[Bronze iron and steel will prob stay the same requirment]). Add 1 or 2 new tier of items. The resources or ores required to smith these new tier of items dont need to come from mining(they could be pvm drops), but they probably should. 1 of the tiers should challenge rune and make free to play items(definately should be mining resource) the second tier items should challenge dragon or be dragon, but ofcourse could be dependant on very rare pvm drops)--dragon full helm would not be smithable.---it would be best if the new tier challenges dragon items instead of being dragon items.
• Slayer, enjoyable by most, but at the same time dreaded by most. Weird but true. Its the longest skill, longer than runecrafting(no cannon)--and requires even more buildup. Extensive questing & combat training(needs lvls early xp rates get better at higher cb) & grinding. Simply I would provide players with more choice and control of rng.---This is probably why a slayer boss is being proposed because its provides players with more choice and a pseudo controll of rng because you'll have two active tasks. Dont get me wrong i favour the new boss slayer master, aslong as the task weighting is made right.---So that the highly sought after tasks are rare. To the point where medium boss slayer tasks like barrows would be the "bloodvelds". ---

---the way Id solve the slayer dilemma would be to add earnable task weight pts. Up to 9 pts-you earn one each 10 slayer levels. These task weight pts allows you to boost a tasks's weight by 3 and costing 3pts. Meaning you can only boost 3 tasks and they all boost 3. This way your more likely to get the task you want, but are still prone to bad luck. Of course if boss slayer master passes this change should not apply to that master. I dont believe slayer would need much integral change after that. having a much sturdier controll of your rng is good enough, and that has the opportunity to buff xp/hr well.

----Also id like to note that more boosting to task weight can be plausible at the cost of not gaining slayer experience for cannoning said task. This can be optional to the original change i proposed. But more like necessary if jagex implement a change similar that gives a little too much control to the rng, so that it doesn't get abused.

• Runecrafting. Lowering requirements of better xp/hr methods to make the xp/hr curve better is a no no no. The xp/curve is the issue. drastically slow start, drastically slow med tier, drastically slow end game, decent end-end game. They really just need to boost the xp/hr of 1 or 2 runes in each tier. They can then run an extensive community poll where they showcase current best xp/hr rates per tier(entry/low/mid/end/end-end) and the community decides trough polling how should the xp/rates for the best method within each tier should be buffed. I recommend keeping the entry and low level dry. Boosting the start and end of mid tier. Boosting all of end tier. And slight to no boost at end-end.

If the integrity change causes issues with players who have already maxed. Then allows for the fact that they have gotten 99(in the OG way) in the said skill to be shown in the high scores and on their skill capes---and the amount of xp they gained in this(og) way to also be showcased, so those who went post 99 dont get left out. also allow for a 2-3month window for players who want to achieve 99 in said skill before the changes go live.

You poll the Question, "Should _______ get a intergrity buff?"

then you explain the issues with current state of said skill and explain people with 99 in the skill( post 99xp) will get thier distinction for getting 99( post 99xp).

The poll needs to pass by 90%

If the poll passes , all the changes that follow have to be polled like regularly(75%)

Once changes pass and are ready for implementation, you proclaim the 2month grace period to get 99( post 99) in said skill the OG way.