fenrir321
-
Posts
683 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by fenrir321
-
-
NEW: see edit at bottom of post
OLD:
+69 ranged attack pales in comparison to the rune crossbow +92 ranged attack.
At lvl 80 range:
The adpc (average damage per cycle*) of a short bow with adamant arrows is 45.5
The adpc of a crossbow with broad or adamant bolts is 57.5
I remember when the short bow was used in EVERY ranged pking fight. Now it's rarely used.
Why should it be?
Crossbows have:
Significantly greater ranged attack
significantly greater mdpc
allow the use of a shield
bolts hit harder per use
bolts have special abilities
bolts are cheaper training methods (bone and broad) while the equivalent arrow is not only much weaker but more expensive
Because short bows are much faster than crossbows they have one pro:
In the short term, they can pile up damage (in less than one cycle) more quickly than a crossbow (even more so with the msb special attack). [hide=Example]Let's say that a short bow shoots 7 times in 35 seconds and a crossbow 5 times in 35 seconds, both are on rapid (hence the 7 and 5 instead of 6 and 4 respective speeds.)
Using rune arrows and bolts: 16 max and 25 max respectively. Assuming they hit the max all times:
5 seconds sb-16 cb- 0
7 seconds sb-16 cb- 25
10 seconds sb- 32 cb- 25
14 seconds sb- 32 cb- 50
15 seconds sb- 48 cb- 50
20 seconds sb- 64 cb- 50
21 seconds sb- 64 cb 75
25 seconds sb- 80 cb 75
28 seconds sb- 80 cb- 100
30 seconds sb- 96 cb- 100
35 seconds sb- 112 cb- 125
In some instances, the short bow outhits the crossbow, but the crossbow catches up in the later part of the damage cycles and wins by a substantial amount[/hide]
It makes me wonder why I even carry an msb in my bank. Probably for aesthetic reasons, but that aside, it's wasting space.
*Average damage per cycle is ascertained through multiplying the average hit (max divided by two)of a weapon by the speed.
Example: Max hit of a whip for me is 28 normally. So, 14 x 6 = 84 adpc. (Speed multiplier is derived from the "cooldown" timing e.g. msb on rapid will hit 7 times by the time the whip hits 6 and by the time the longsword hits 5.)
Something that I need to state for future posts:
I have NO quarrel with better equipment. I am in full agreement that just because adamant armor is older than rune armor doens't mean it should be rebalanced to be in equal with rune. I DO have a quarrel when weapon in a lower tier of levels out performs a weapon in a HIGHER tier (rune c'bow out hits the crystal bow with cheaper ammunition than the "Crystal arrows").
Edit: Compfreak has pointed out my math errors and therefore completely destroying the argument that the crystal bow is better than the rune cbow in grinding. I have abandoned the msb rant/argument because of my ridiculous overlook (msb is a lvl 50 weapon and the rune crossbow a lvl 61 weapon.) Therefore, there really is nothing left to do with the rant except anything opinionated (e.g. I think shortbows and the crystal bow should be updated to at least be more more common for the poorer class, like a lunar ring to the seer's ring, a torso to the bandos chestplate, an obsidian sword + zerker necklace to the saradomin sword, etc.)
Essentially, Compfreak's calculations point out how ridiculously pathetic the msb and the crystal bow are. Therefore, they actually reinforce the whole point of the rant: asking why the heck do people use them if they suck so badly? :lol:
-
Unless they fixed it, I believe the only safe area in Castle Wars is the single tile right in front of the bank chest, not the whole lobby.
edit: Yeah, I know what you mean Luf :wall:
Pretty good, classic.
Which is why it's a good senior prank :
-
-
It would be nice if Jagex gave us a slot in the equipment interface to show our current max hit and dps, but sadly, that seems "too good".
The simple argument of if the chest/tassets are worth it is a simple plug of numbers into the max hit formula.
I'm sure this isn't the case with everyone, but as of right now, it takes 13 equipment strength points to raise my max hit by +2 (7 for the first +1 and then an additional 6 for the next +1). It is quite possible that despite the fact that I may have the maximum strength bonus, I could have up to 6 less strength bonus points (and trade in bandos for dh) and hit EXACTLY the same.
I actually lol every time I see someone in bandos and be a lower level. It just makes me feel sad that quite possibly they spent their money for absolutely no gain.
On the plus side, Bandos does offer better ranged defense than dharok, which makes it better suited for anti-range warriors. Then again, everyone hybrids, so who cares? :wall:
-
There are two things I hate:
1. the damn idiots who don't know how to play barbarian assault and/or think using the cannon loses us points :wall:
2. d claws on pvp worlds <- I just died on Sunday from about a 52 ko and lost about 100k (meh, not much, but still...)
-
impressive post.
A little long, maybe put some "hide" tabs to shorten it.
-
TBH if you die you should lose all your items in my opinion... If you dont come prepared you die and learn the consequences.
I agree; that would be a fair system. I would like to be able to save one item though.
That would be fair for places where getting items back is relatively simple, but for places like quests or minigames that disallow graves stones, 3 items seems more fair.
Of course, if we had a durability concept on our armor and weapons, we could lose 25% durability or more on our items. Jagex is pretty keen on being in the front lines of competition with other mmo's, so might as well mimic the death system of Blizzard.
But as pretty much a lot of people have stated, OP, the saradomin helm is more expensive because you lose it during death. If the value of kept on death items was not static (high alch value) and fluctuated (ge value), then the lowest priced item of the set would rise well above the rest (and thus the helm) and continue to dominate until the next lowest item would [bleep]e in price.
Essentially, the [bleep]e in price cycle would continue until it when into a complete cycle when you would lose the helm again.
And at the end of the day, you would still be ranting on why you lost the helm. ;)
-
Meh, I don't know. All I know is that in DT, Fareed is week to water, Kamil is weak to fire, Dessous is weak to air, and Damis is weak to earth.
Smoke = fire
Ice = water
Shadow = air
Blood = earth
That's my experience with elemental weaknesses, not sure about others.
-
I like the self-buffing ideas as opposed to the current debuffs that we have. However, I would like to point out that 8 spaces is a LOT. You have to do one of two things:
1) make it smaller like around 4 spaces. This will surprise people when suddenly knocked back 4 spaces. It will take probably about a second to get their senses back together. This is assuming that the attack is automatically turned off when knocked back. If not, then the push back is somewhat useless at 4 and should be kept at 8 spaces as you have said. I would suggest making turn off the auto attack because it would make mages require more thought in stringing attacks.
2) make the animation long but also stun the opponent for about five seconds or along that line. That way, they have time to prepare bu if it does hit, it hits HARD.
You lack an essential set of spells for f2p:
Kiting spells.
There needs to be a set of spells that drain the run energy of an opponent to 0% very quickly so that mages can literally run circles around meleers without hindering rangers very much.
Other than that, your suggestions seem fairly balanced. You might want to make a "needs all f2p quests done" kind of thing so we at least slightly mitigate the combat frequency of these new spells (we don't want noobs who can't ancient effectively running around with ancients, now do we?)
My only worry is that this new spell book will completely override the others. IMO the three spells books (excluding lunar) should be almost equal, only differing in preference and circumstances. For example, in WoW there are three spell sets: arcane, fire, and frost. Fire is good at mas dps in pvp. Ice is good at raid cc but not so much at pvp on its own since fire will merely break free and MASSIVELY do MASSIVE damage at you. Arcane is a self-improvement/cc/dps (best of both worlds) set but not as good as fire or ice in those departments. Conversely, fire will suck at raiding since it burns mana FAST and can accidentally pull aggro; very bad. Ice will suck at pvp because, as said above, it can cc, but it will also leave you open to massive dps (fire).
For the context of ancients vs. modern, IMO modern should be just as good if not better than ancients in SINGLE pvp (but only in dps, not effects). Ancients should be far superior in cc and massive dps in 1 vs 10 situations. So what role does your spell book possess? Is it the best of both worlds, like arcane, or are you trying to make the modern book be arcane and this book be single pvp superior, with ancients as massive cc?
edit:ok, +12 magic for a potion? uh, no. that means people with 84 magic could cast ice barrage, SEVERELY raising the combat frequency of such things. No, just no.
-
I completely agree. The game is basically a snowball. There needs to be at least another obelisk for the other team. That way, there's another target to control. Two teams can go at the avatar simultaneously while two try to capture the opposing obelisk to dominate the field, diffusing the power amongst the teams instead of concentrating, literally, a hundred players in the soul obelisk.
It also causes a lot of lag because of the concentration. I think the playing field should be bigger, maybe about 50% more so that players must use their bandages to replenish their run energy.
There should also be more slayer monsters with higher slayer levels.
-
Two things, one is a question:
1. OP, if Jagex made a single player instance exactly the same as the Karamja Lessers with NPCs as competition to balance out, would you still hate player interaction or would you rant about the availability of the Lessers?
2. I truly understand having to withstand the stubbornness of players, like those damn noobs who kill cades trying to protect the avatar just 'cause. However, people have a right to act stupid or stubborn. You can't change that right in the least, so might as well learn to live with it. On that note, saying that social interaction is horrible is off-kilter as well. Making a blanket statement that everyone is stupid (except yourself) is pretty ridiculous [don't want to play minigames because you'd run into stupid people. there are more "smart" people than stupid people, so does that mean that if you were paired with an experienced partner in a duel minigame that you'd still hate their guts and the interaction?]
Regardless, social interaction is what makes a human a human. Despite any human interaction that you may have in real-life, there are real people behind those screens. Therefore, out right refusal to interact with players online is almost akin to be reclusive in real-life. And in that regard, there is some reason for the other posters' calling you anti-social.
-
Wurmskin, are you sure that your siggy is ok for children like my little brother sitting next to me as I type. I mean, barely clothed girl....... yeah that is ok for my little brother. Sorry if this is off topic.
Barely? Lol you should see girls from ecchi genre. THAT'S barely clothed.
And yeah, Americans let ten year olds play M games and watch Saw series but scream and say "UNCLEAN" when their's a little skin or even Michelangelo and Da Vinci.
That doesn't make sense to me at all, and I'm American
OT: I'm not like that at least, can't say for the other people. And I use my void in pvp fairly much. But yeah...void fails except at highest levels at around 90-98 where your ranegd attack is so high that losing about 100 points of ranged accuracy doesn't matter.
-
It's out of hand... these people are so desperate... it's so sad. I stood outside fallador gates and I killed 50 of them in a row before I had to bank. And what's even more sad is that the same people come back over and over and over and over... what the hell?? What has the RS community come to? Are they nothing more then zombies? It's obvious that they wern't going to kill me, yet they are so zombie like to get my items they just keep comming back and back.
I felt like I was in a horror movie where I had a shot gun ( aka my rune x bow ) and kept blowing their brains out over and over again yet they just kept on comming.
The worst part is, they lose nothing can be back in literally 5 seconds ... wtf? There needs to be a system to fix this honestly... I don't mind people 1 iteming for fun here and there but it's out of CONTROL.
It's because their pro and ur noob.
"It's because they're pro, and you're a noob."
And if EVERYONE one-itemed, then what would be the point of armor? The weapon as is is good enough to take out a good chunk of health. Probably a good way to at least mitigate the problem is to put a 30 or 15 second time limit on coming back out of a respawn point.
-
Jagex could add some kiting spells like WoW has *cough*slow*cough*frostbolt*cough.
OMG, another WoWer, :thumbsup: . Shatter combos FTW.
I haven't really thought of frequency of mages as that much of a problem. Maybe reducing the number of people that magic can hit? I'm fine with single target damage though, hehe.
Not frequency as the amount of times one can hit with magic, but the frequency of their presence.
Example:
there is a 12.5% chance of meeting a mage in Soul Wars (hypothetical) which means that 1/8 of the people in Soul wars are mages. that means that 2/16 are mages. and in reference to my first post, the presence of a second ancient mage will greatly tip the balance (the difference between 1 and 2 is much greater than 2 and 3 analogy). basically, that's my argument.
edit: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: it's always AFTER I post that I figure out that I've misread my quote. Sorry about that #-o
And yes, I played (and play) WoW :). [hide=read for WoW]Recently, I play WoW just for the raids and instances as a break from the hard road to 99 attack and hp in Rs.
My mage build is pve with a few pvp talents like counter spell for those times when a damn ally nightelf/gnome rouge jumps me, but I usually phail epically. I usually spend my time kiting mobs like crazy (I'm getting better; I can now effectively kite three elite mobs in Utgarde Pennacle and not get hit at all) because there's something enticing about running circles around npcs and killing them. I never really liked the shatter combos; I was always the scorch x5 - arcane power - presence of mind - pyroblast combo because of the insane dps and burns. But I've talked too much about a rival game trying to uproot Jagex in all their game glory for $6 a month :o![/hide]
So you're saying that the frequency of mages should not increase? I think mages need to be just as numerous and present as meleers and rangers. What makes magic something that can tip the balance of the game? Is it their ability to hit multiple opponents at once? If so, then I'd be happy to allow Jagex to drastically reduce multi target damage or reduce the number of opponents magic can hit at once - My only concern is single target damage.
My question: Why do you feel the need for mages to be less plentiful than warriors and rangers?
It's not mages in general that I want to limit. I want to limit the frequency of high power spells. For example, surely if two out of every three people in pvp had a godsword, it would be insane, correct? Same concept. Probably something that Jagex can do is group the ancient spells based on multi and single, not strength (single target orders first in learning than multi) It would go like this: rush, blitz, burst, barrage. Blitz and burst would shift places in accuracy and strength. Then Jagex could change the way how the multi target spells work.
Ice multi could drain the run energy by 1:1 damage to energy of the target for burst and 1:2 for barrage instead of freezing. That way, there would be a way to actually kite mobs and players even.
Shadow could probably drain special attack energy and lower accuracy to a lesser extent for multi. The multi smoke doesn't really need tweaking and neither does blood because the max healing from hitting nine targets is about 65. Half that for frequency of hitting damage and about an average of healing 32 per hit of costing about 2k for 9 targets. You basically heal about 3.5 damage per target. That's pretty even considering that 5 targets heals about the same a shark and almost everyone has a whip, sara sword, or gsword wanting to kill the tank mager.
-
Jagex could add some kiting spells like WoW has *cough*slow*cough*frostbolt*cough.
OMG, another WoWer, :thumbsup: . Shatter combos FTW.
I haven't really thought of frequency of mages as that much of a problem. Maybe reducing the number of people that magic can hit? I'm fine with single target damage though, hehe.
Not frequency as the amount of times one can hit with magic, but the frequency of their presence.
Example:
there is a 12.5% chance of meeting a mage in Soul Wars (hypothetical) which means that 1/8 of the people in Soul wars are mages. that means that 2/16 are mages. and in reference to my first post, the presence of a second ancient mage will greatly tip the balance (the difference between 1 and 2 is much greater than 2 and 3 analogy). basically, that's my argument.
edit: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: it's always AFTER I post that I figure out that I've misread my quote. Sorry about that #-o
And yes, I played (and play) WoW :). [hide=read for WoW]Recently, I play WoW just for the raids and instances as a break from the hard road to 99 attack and hp in Rs.
My mage build is pve with a few pvp talents like counter spell for those times when a damn ally nightelf/gnome rouge jumps me, but I usually phail epically. I usually spend my time kiting mobs like crazy (I'm getting better; I can now effectively kite three elite mobs in Utgarde Pennacle and not get hit at all) because there's something enticing about running circles around npcs and killing them. I never really liked the shatter combos; I was always the scorch x5 - arcane power - presence of mind - pyroblast combo because of the insane dps and burns. But I've talked too much about a rival game trying to uproot Jagex in all their game glory for $6 a month :o![/hide]
-
Yes, it's funny after a few spies, but eventually the flames will get to you. I use my ignore list when it gets really abusive, but I'm still reluctant to do so. Of course, when I'm being spied upon, I tease obviously and then give a smirk (is that even possible online?!) and then possibly join them :lol:
-
Probably my most fun thing to do is to either talk to npcs with random on lunar or use stat spy.
I have been discouraged from using stat spy because of three things:
1) says "Zelda12346 has read your stats!"
2) supposedly breaches privacy (get to that in a sec)
3) the animation attracts people like a magnet
My responses to them:
1) why is it that it's called stat SPY but tells WHO spied on you? That makes no sense.
2) Maybe this was a long time ago when I actively did this, but I would always get something like "mind your stats" or "noob spyer" every ten or so spies. I would also get piled in pits when using this spell.
3) See point 2. Either they (not spied) says, "omg, what spell is that?" "Do me next!" or they (spied) says "What the hell? Noob"
Reasons why I like stat spy:
It eats up some time while also giving an insight on random peoples' stats (NOT because I like to annoy people.) It also can allow me to relay pile targets to my mates base on stats. I thank Jagex for this spell not being a "requires request aid" spell for privacy. Which brings me to my next point: what privacy is there? If I really wanted look up someone's stats for free, I'd have hiscores in a tab ready to go. There's no advantage except a lost screen (which really doesn't matter in non-pvp situations), so what's the argument of losing privacy?
Ugh, maybe I'm beating a dead horse on this one, but I've never understood/knew what the majority of the people though about stat spy. Therefore, I ask the copious community of players at Tipit to help me out! :)
-
Here is a WoW PvP video of an Undead mage. Runescape really fostered my love of mages and when I started playing WoW, I became obsessed with them (WoW differs from Runescape in that it's very reflexes and awareness based, rather then reliant on levels, like Runescape is. They're both really cool, though). I'm not sure how much you'll take away from this video if you watch it, but this guy plays on an extremely high level:
http://www.warcraftmovies.com/stream.ph ... 55&stream=
Anyway, I feel like we've made some progress on the P2P front. I feel that there will be a need to address F2P magic because higher level spells are lacking. If you have any thoughts, post them here pl0x :D.
Jagex could add some kiting spells like WoW has *cough*slow*cough*frostbolt*cough.
Magic isn't underpowered except in f2p where therein lacks a set of kiting spells to ward off meleers. Like comp said, it's overpowered. I'm much more afraid of a barrager than even a godsword or dark bow.
The problem is that the spells themselves aren't really overpowered. A single barrager will cause some minor damage in wargames like castle wars or soul wars. But even just two will begin to overpower the game (unless it's massive, like +200 people per side). This is because of a mechanic similar to suppressive fire where when if one dies, there's no moment of reprieve to regroup because of another barrager. However, if the spells were nerfed, then bottlenecking players would be very ineffective in soul wars. Therefore, the problem is the frequency of the spells in combat situations.
Because Desert treasure is ridiculously and shamefully easy to do with help, there are a bunch of people with ancients running around.
The only thing I can think of to sift out the frequency would add a higher requirement for the quest, include quest points, and possibly add a magic trainer like on WoW to drain some cash. That would discourage players from trying to go for ancients.
-
If you have high enough defense without prayer, you can try to tank by camping at the enemy's supply tables indefinitely. This is a fairly good tactic because some people just can't resist the temptation to attack and try to kill you. As long as there are more of your people at the obelisk than the opponents', it doesn't matter if the opponent is dead or distracted.
And I'd suggest using zeal points on nothing but melee stats for survival. You can do the summoning later and the gamble is only about 40k per try.
-
But, you also have to factor in "morale". For example, a person who has just spent all their money on one thing will be less inclined to earn it back only to spend it again than someone who spend part of their money and then spends the rest on same thing. Both ways end up with the same result in the same amount of time, but one has a more detrimental effect on morale. Why else (besides starts) would their be an argument over order in a relay? Additive property would say that the order of addition doesn't matter, only morale in this case. Morale can be a powerful thing in the methodology of training, and I am foolish to have forgotten to have put that in the post #-o
Nah, you made that up. :shame:
Okay, that's a little blunt, but you can't quantify the effect a training method will have on a person's enjoyment of the game, because it's completely subjective. You can take it into account in your personal gameplay, but it doesn't factor into any of this.
Besides, I would argue that faster experience does more to help someone's morale than the speed at which one's imaginary coffers empty, especially since you don't need to get all the money at a given time if you don't want to, and you can stop to replenish it at any time.
You're right; it is subjective, so there really wasn't any reason for my bringing it up #-o
However, I didn't make it up. I'm guessing that most teenagers that only want to do "one" thing as opposed to two when "working" in runescape would say that ecto would better. Same also applies to procrastinators (yours truly), but morale changes for each person. Yes, it a fairly important factor, but completely subjective.
I have no idea why the hell I'm off center today #-o Usually I'm much more logical in posts.
-
But, you also have to factor in "morale". For example, a person who has just spent all their money on one thing will be less inclined to earn it back only to spend it again than someone who spend part of their money and then spends the rest on same thing. Both ways end up with the same result in the same amount of time, but one has a more detrimental effect on morale. Why else (besides starts) would their be an argument over order in a relay? Additive property would say that the order of addition doesn't matter, only morale in this case. Morale can be a powerful thing in the methodology of training, and I am foolish to have forgotten to have put that in the post #-o
-
I thought of them, but i'm at lv 55 wild...Do i get more pvp points here or armoureds is same rate?
Nah, it isn't a hotspot. Much better xp and cash though.
Well i dont want cash atm, just need some pvp points while training :)
Why do you care about drop potential if cash isn't important to you? The only reason to build drop potential is to get more cash from drops.
Or for untradeable items like brawling gloves
-
i know it's double xp, but how much xp will it last before it disappears?
*Gives double smithing and construction experience and crumbles to dust after about 64k Smithing experience and it crumbles to dust after 50,750 Construction experience.
* If used for construction, it will not double any experience given in other skills as a bonus for certain construction items, e.g. the 25 smithing experience given when building some armour stands.
* Does not crack coconuts.
-
I want to know how much will it cost to get from 71 to 85 magic if I hi alch yew longbows. Also is there a cheaper way that is still kind of fast? That's all for now. Thanks :
Current rate for yew longs in exp is about 1 exp per 2 gp.
exp from 71-85 is 2,450,000 exp. Therefore, cost would be at about 5 million gp not including the cost for buying the items beforealching them.
What's the point of the magic short bow? (Editted)
in Rants
Posted
I know that, I remember it clearly. My question is "why has Jagex made short bows *almost* completely obsolete?"
Yes, the cost of the short bow and ammunition is cheaper (depending on the ammunition) than a rune crossbow and it's bolts.
However, since people are willing to risk dragon claws without 1 or 3 iteming, the cost is negligible.
As for the special attack, although I may have been more "supportive" of the special attack, remember that most battles will last longer than a single "cycle" and the special attack will require several before it will be at 55% again.
Also, diamond bolts are extremely hard hitting, as well as dragon bolts; my damage calculation does not take into account those special abilities. Considering that at best the special attack (at 80 range) will hit a 32 (which is EXTREMELY rare), even then a crossbow is more efficient damage-wise.