We've shown through the previous iterations we're not going to just implement things without player feedback, its our primary concern.
I'm don't understand, because the example of the FSOA and AD changes do not reflect player feedback. It was over 60% saying no to both changes iirc and no mention prior or during the beta was it stated, "Hey we're still making these changes, we just want you all to play with it." At that point, I'd give you credit for that, but it was entirely misleading, especially with a poll to see % wise player input their thoughts on the change. So that response is not accurate.
As a result magic (which was in a good place powerwise on the beta fell behind so we wanted to give some of that back).
If that's the case, why are we adding something to new to the weapon? That change forces you to use the staff consistently if you want any remote ounce of damage increase, compared to using dual wield... or honestly where it was pre nerf with recursive hits.
so we wanted to try pulling those down, as it wasn't in need of extra power, and players had commented on it.
I would actually like to see the comments on this. As far as I've read and the knowledge I have of players in game I have not seen anything saying, "I need range to be less than it is so it can be on level with melee, mage or necro." Which in saying that is redundant because necro is absolutely wild DPS, range barely keeps up except at high enrage Zamorak.
We need to be able to have adult conversations about these things as community...
I couldn't agree more! I'm absolutely one for full communication... however from our end as players I wouldn't say we're not the ones communicating full transparency of ideas. It also makes me think of my favorite saying, "If it's not broke, don't fix it."