compfreak847

Well, .03% of the population has. Let's shoot for .07% by the end of '09... Yeah, nezy helm when training melee, veracs helm when doing anything important\maging, armadyl helm when training range.

Ok, but your going to do less damage and get less XP and drops. Most RS players would rather get faster XP\drops then hit more often and harder. its a phycalogical thing though, if it seems that i am doing very little damage i start waning to train less and less, but if i see myslef doing 30's i will be like "wow cool this is fun! i shold do it more" ...see my point Not really, a quick glance at the XP\hour will show that your getting significantly less XP, something that usually turns off most people. Yes, dds is far superior to d long. D claws is far better then them and significantly better then AGS, though. claws aren't that great, brunokiller can own people with his blitz/ags madness. I have seen plenty of specials to know that it is overrated. a cheap dds can easily do high damage. gmauls can do high damage. I've done 16 hours with claws, or about 600 specs, and at least 8 times that with AGS. I've spent literally dozens of hours with blitz\ags spec combos. D claws are superior to AGS; they are more accurate, have a higher max (and thus a higher average hit), and hit twice as fast.

"Man dies today from spending 79 hours straight playing video games. He almost achieved his goal of 99 Thieving. Our hearts go out to his clan" :lol: OT: Yeah really only butable skills are "fast" 99's, firemaking, fletching, cooking, etc., but you really need to have patience for repetitiveness. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/17/chinese-man-dies-after-pl_n_64698.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4137782.stm http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/boy-collapses-after-playing-world-warcraft-24-hours-straight http://forums.freddyshouse.com/general2/168437-man-dies-after-playing-starcraft-48-hours-straight.html http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2120472/second-gamer-dies-massive-binge http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/10/10/man_dies_playing_computer_games/ http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/19/1034561356377.html http://www.geek.com/articles/games/chinese-man-dies-after-week-long-gaming-session-20070228/ Yeah, there's no skills you can get with those requirements.

Ok, but your going to do less damage and get less XP and drops. Most RS players would rather get faster XP\drops then hit more often and harder. its a phycalogical thing though, if it seems that i am doing very little damage i start waning to train less and less, but if i see myslef doing 30's i will be like "wow cool this is fun! i shold do it more" ...see my point Not really, a quick glance at the XP\hour will show that your getting significantly less XP, something that usually turns off most people. Yes, dds is far superior to d long. D claws is far better then them and significantly better then AGS, though.

http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Calculators/High_alch Knock yourself out :

Ok, but your going to do less damage and get less XP and drops. Most RS players would rather get faster XP\drops then hit more often and harder.

Are you joking? Enchanting diamond bolts is roughly 1.7x the clicks per minute of alching, and you have to move your mouse halfway across the screen EVERY click. Have you actually tried this yourself? See my post above; diamond bolts will gain or lose 1m+ per hour depending on market fluctuations. Extremely risky and hard to predict or sell, a huge pain.

Then you didn't test it very accuratly. Bottom line: Dragon scimitar has been tested thousands of times in hundreds of different places, and has been conclusively proven to deal more damage per minute then the d long. DD++ spec requires the same quest and is cheaper then the d long yet far outdoes it. End of argument.

Alching is 70k per hour for a 31k loss. Dragonstone enchant in MTA is 60k XP for 150k loss. Diamond enchanting varies massively depending on the market; I experimented with it some, but after losing 5m I decided that it was better left alone. I was getting well north of 140k XP per hour, and at one time making 2m per hour.

http://www.speedtest.net, a great place to check the bandwidth\latency of your internet connection and compare it to others. My personal results are in my sig, I had to do some creative cropping to get them to fit. Post specifics about your setup if you want; I'm running cable with a gigabit connection via a 50' cat 6 cable to my laptop.

Not sure about buying limit. Fire giants are quite a bit slower with higher defence\more crowded, I'd go to experments for a break.

Have you tried minimizing\maximizing the screen then clicking on the RS menu itself to activate the keyboard? That failing, try updating your Java. Are you running 6.10?

Those are not the only drops worth picking up. They may be the drops that add up the most, but the others also add up. If you had looked back to page 22 you would see that, instead i'll post the drops I got here: That was in the course of 55.5 minutes, hence why it is 92k for the hour. So yes, the drops pay for the supplies used. Armoured Zombies have already been shown to be less experience, I don't see why you can't understand that. As also the cannon has been shown to be worth it. As for the Zombie Monkies it was worked out to be about 1.6k more experience per hour than Slayer. However, to get that extra experience you were losing out on about 245k per hour. If you make well over 20m an hour Zombie Monkies are better, since that is impossible on a consistent basis, there is no possible way for them to be better. The time taken to pick up those smaller drops isn't worth it when whipping; no matter how practiced, you lose at least a hit running over to pick up. Hence why the drops don't outweigh the potions, and the boots themselves are only 481k per hour. Cannon has been shown to be inefficient by a reasonable margin at 400k; redoing the calculations at 460-480k would result in very little change, at most making cannon virtually break even. Zombie monkies are significantly more XP then slayer without cannon, being around 10k XP higher then Armored Zombies, as slayer still only offers 65k combat XP (45k for informal training).

:| Post edited...

He can't high alch until 65, and once he does, air battlestaffs are 2x cheaper then almost anything else right now.

Alch air battlestaffs (210k, 5.2 hours) for 70 magic. Bronze knives on yaks, should be around 6-7 hours to 70. Yeah, you finally made me do the calcs myself :-#

The 550k was your number. You posted that number in this thread only 1 or 2 (maybe 3) pages back. I also tested them (back on page 22) and I worked out the rate. 48k for pots? I calculated the supplies to be about an 87k loss. That must mean that spiritual mages are even worse though right? No, because you ignored their drops. Their drops other than Dragon Boots repay the cost of supplies and even make a little extra profit. That essentially means any Dragon Doots received is pure profit. The kill rate was slightly higher and you are essentially guaranteed an average of over 100k more here than Aviansies whilst also gaining more combat experience. Isn't this entire thread about combat experience? I however haven't stated that my average is the average for everyone. Also as I have shown, you get less experience at Armoured Zombies then on Slayer, and the money i'm still unsure about. The entire premise for which this thread was creating was in the comparison to Zombie Monkies. I proved without a doubt that there is no way that they are better than doing Slayer. Also note all the mistakes in the first post. The only reason this is still going is because Armoured Zombies were released. The rates for them need extensive testing before a conclusion can really be reached as they are so close. Even if for arguments sake that Armoured Zombies work out better, and from what I have seen, the difference would still be negligible. That means there is only one possible option in the game better than Slayer. How does that make Slayer so bad when it would make Slayer second best by a mere fraction? NPC contact (as TheDayRsDied suggested) or Karamja Gloves 3 are two great options to get the task and consume little time. Figuring out how and where? How is that hard? They don't move around to a different place every few tasks, you will kill them the same way you have done so in the past. There really isn't much in the way of 'specific' supplies, and the ones that are do not cost much. As has been stated, how is gaining approximately 135k+ per hour a waste of money...? Gaining money is a waste... oh noes my Runecrafting level is ruined now.... ok sure. Also the experience is good and above average when everything is taken into account. It works out to about 141.7k or so overall experience per hour. 85 Slayer also is not that high. The number itself might be, but the experience required to get to 85 is relatively small in the long run. The only drops worth picking up are pure ess and nature runes, which provide significantly less then the 87k loss. Armored zombies are STILL more XP then slayer, and if you use a cannon, you will be LOSING money, making it vastly inefficient compared to armored zombies. It's not the merest fraction; it's a matter of nearly (190/475, assuming slayer breaks even with cannon, =) 40% of each hour you slay will be spent earning the 190k to even the cash up with armored zombies. And that's assuming your a skilled slayer with an already-high slayer level who is extremely efficient and experienced. As for Zombie monkies, yes, a highly efficient slayer will find them negligibly faster overall XP, but significantly less combat XP, the basis of my rant.

Irony at it's best Explain? You assumed infinite regression (edit due to possible misreading). My statement made no assumptions and was pretty much on the money. Also 'infinity' can occur in nature. Black holes have infinite density for example. Can you prove it? Prove what? The infinite density? It's just theoretical of course, but it's what happens when you divide by zero. A huge amount of mass compressed into zero volume singularity (black hole) equals infinite density. No, he can't prove it, because it isn't true. Black holes, including the event horizon, are pretty low density. A black hole the mass of earth would be larger then the earth; a black hole with the equivalent mass of the visible universe would be LARGER then the visible universe, meaning the black hole actually has a lower density. The black hole beyond the event horizon is trapping time, light, and space in a fixed point, so it can't really be measured. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/30/ten-things-you-dont-know-about-black-holes/ As for the OP, just because what you know now seems to indicate a pattern doesn't mean it holds true forever - assuming quarks weren't the smallest component, we can assume SOMETHING is. Matter isn't infinity divisible; for an example look at the string theory. As stated before, unless your a team of physicists arguing or wondering about it won't really result in anything meaningful.

That's true, but if you do allow for hitting rates, my point still stands. So yes, my formula was off, but my point wasn't and still is true :P

It's still not false. If you want to get a platebody, like many threads in H&A are about, you will get more XP from getting an adamant chainbody then a fighter torso.

Your right, it only works for torso; the problem is, it's calculation how much of the strength bonus is coming from torso, which is messing up the other end. I'm too lazy to fix it right now, but I'll rewrite it later to include misses; I'm sure the results will be similar.

I was just stating that Slayer isn't as hard as you make it out to be (hundreds of hours to learn how to do Slayer, if that were true by the time you know how to do it you have it at 99). You can't really compare difficulty as not everyone finds the same things hard. About the cannon, I explained why I hadn't posted. Oddly enough, no-one else posted during that time, funny isn't it? I showed from tests and Qeltar's data that it was. Another point to bring up is 83 Slayer in the long run won;t take that long to get and results in 550k per hour profit on average. Using that as the money maker would more than make the cannon worth it considering it was worth it at only 400k. Even though you somehow disagree with it not being worth it at 400k, what reason is there for 550k? I left nothing for a few weeks, it was all hammered out shortly after you came back with your bloodvield numbers; I conclusivily proved that it was not worth using with your data, and you came back saying that 'yeah well it's worth it at 550k per hour'. First of all, 240 kills per hour @ 130 kills per boot = 1.84 boots per hour @ 270k per boot = 496.8k - 48k for pots = 448.8k per hour. Slightly more then avansies. Secondly, given that a cannon isn't worth it at 400k, even if it is worth it for a few tasks at 450k, your looking at basically identical XP for with and without cannon. You do, of course, realize that both me and ydraisl's (and qeltar and zarfot) tests are based on 95+ combat stats? Much as I'd like to, it's rather difficult for me to test everything at 70s stats. Fortuantly, I can do the next best thing - standardize the levels I use, meaning earnings and XP can be scaled down easily. Basically, it boils down to this: if your getting more XP and cash at armored zombies with 95 combat stats then slayer, your going to get more XP and cash there at 80 combat stats. Thanks for the fan backup, but I'm far from 100% right. If I'm proven wrong I try to accept it and move on though :oops:

You missed the main point I was making. Is the average player going to have 99 combat stats? The obvious answer is no, therefore your average rate is not the average rate for the average player. I don't see why that was so difficult to understand. As for "telling" me what they are... in your first post didn't you also tell everyone that the Monkies were only 40k loss per hour? That wasn't a "general guesstimate" was it? As for the picking up drops with how you described, that has a higher chance of losing more experience per hour than clicking on the Zombie. Why you may ask? Because your basing it on their hits, not yours. You might be just about to hit after they hit you, but because of doing it the way you described, you miss out on a hit as auto-retaliate has to wait until it hits you again. The way to lose the least amount is to click on them between your hits. With the section where I referred to easiness, I was not talking about the Monkies. As for you stating it takes hours to learn about the cannon, it is far from difficult. If the NPC is 2 steps away and 1 step in a perpendicular direction in any way, it will double fire (a L shape, like a Knights jump in chess). If the NPC takes up more than one sqare, it goes on which square its drop appears on. As for luring with the cannon? there is no need to. Most tasks you set up the cannon, you stand next to it. You don't have to move, the cannon lures them to you. All up, Slayer does not require hundreads of hours of strategy. He didn't prove a cannon was worth using for the record. I proved it was, and he just ignored what I said and kept saying it wasn't worth it. I don't want to go through it again however, if you want to see it, it is from about page 14 or so onwards. At the maxed stats argument: my slayer XP also isn'tfor the 'average' player. Picking up drops? At most your going to lose out on 2-3k per hour without knowing this. Do you really want to continue the 'slayer is easier to learn then armored zombies' argument? I can argue it if you want, but I'm hoping your reasonable enough to realize how stupid it is. As for the cannon wasn't worth using, you claimed it was with your final post; I proved it wrong, you left for a few weeks, then came back proclaiming that you proved it was.

I agree with both sides of this particular point. Yes there are some rewards that are great and cannot be gotten other ways to compensate. However, ReapMe is correct still. Say a quests gives experience, yes its great, however, in the time it takes to do the quest, you could have gotten that experience and more. In most cases the experience rewards from quests are not enough to compensate. Quests are more often than not inefficient. I do quests because I like them, I don't care about the rewards. I find them fun and always do them without a guide. The same argument that compfreak847 is making can be applied to items such as the barrows gloves. Are you going to tell me that in the time it takes to get 175QP, have the necessary stats and complete the quest that it is worth using? Compare it to a Regeneration Bracelet. Lower in attack bonuses by on 4 (3 for magic), lower in defence bonuses by 6 (3 for magic), lower in strength by 5, and it costs less than 400k. Its ability to double regeneration of Hitpoints more than compensates for the small decrease in defence. It is almost the exact same argument as with the Torso. However this one provides experience bonuses and takes alot more time to get. In that time you could easily make all the experience you get from rewards and then a plethora of combat experience that trumps the "Barrows" Gloves unless you plan on doing combat for over a couple thousand hours. The problem is that barrows gloves are the best glove for basically every situation; fighter torso has virtually no use, and certainly not in training. With gloves your spending a significant amount of time for an item that will boost your XP; with torso, your spending a significant amount of time for an item that will generally get you less XP :|

You set up an almost impossible series of restrictions that applied to very few people beside you; he was simply poking fun at that.