qeltar

What are you trying to do? What are you willing to spend?

There's no free lunch when it comes to Herblore. The fast and easy methods are expensive, and the inexpensive methods aren't easy or fast. Cleaning herbs is cheap because it's slow, tedious and you have to do your homework on a daily basis as prices change. If there was a simple formula for figuring out how to do it, everyone would do it and it wouldn't have the same appeal any more. You have to go to the GE, check prices and adjust based on what you're able to buy.

Over the course of hundreds of kills, any slight mistakes -- such as being a fraction of a second slow in seeing the red bar or a fraction of a second fast anticipating it -- would tend to even out. I also only did monsters that take a fairly long time to kill, which reduces the impact of measurement error. Regardless, random error doesn't matter all that much as long as there is no bias in the measurements. Meaning.. as long as I am doing the same thing for the three cases I am testing, it should all come out in the wash. In practice, the randomness in the game itself is far greater than any variations in my process.

These tests are not conducted by starting a timer, killing the monster X times and then stopping the timer. It is started at the beginning of each kill, and ended at the end of each kill. If at any time I mess up and forget to click at the right time, I scrap that subtest and start over. Thus, my efficiency is not a factor, nor is respawn time, monster movement and so forth. Think about how much effort it takes to accumulate that much data with having to click to start and stop each monster while also keeping track of kills. It's quite time consuming, but I did it specifically to avoid the problems you mentioned.

In my tests, it came to about 960 per hour. I try to be conservative with my figures. This includes the time necessary to empty the potions after they are made, though. You need to do this unless you want to lose a bank space until Jagex implements a "drop from the bank" feature, because Serum 207 cannot be noted.

Obviously. That's why empirical data is valuable. And that data shows that against difficult opponents, +4 accuracy is usually more valuable than +4 strength. Which also makes intuitive sense. No, that is evidence that the difference between a berserker ring and no ring at all is not statistically significant given the inherent random fluctuations in the game itself and my sample size. But I wouldn't call it tiny. Those two tests represent the equivalent of spending about three consecutive 8-hour days in combat. If you think you can do better, go for it -- only so many hours in a day. You're entitled to your opinion. I think that while it may not be 100% conclusive, saying it is 100% inconclusive is nonsense. If there were any sort of obvious advantage to the berserker ring, it would show in that amount of data. "Manipulating data" implies that I am being deliberately dishonest. I'll thank you to either provide evidence that I am doing so or retract that accusation.

That's incorrect, because a single hit that you get because of the warrior ring over a miss with the berserker ring is worth a lot more than the incremental damage you do with the berserker ring. I've tested this extensively and the warrior ring is consistently better on tough opponents.. or at least, no worse. Just published another report earlier today. Neo: Imbued rings from Mobilising Armies.

Why would I tolerate intolerance? Look, every decision involves trade-offs. If I decide to be considerate to players in game, I give up something: the time it takes me to find a different spot or world. If you decide to be selfish in game and refuse to make an effort to be considerate, you also give up something: people think you're a jerk. Shoot the messenger if you want, but someone who proudly declares that they do what's good for them without considering others because all they care about is themselves is a selfish jerk. If you believe other players *don't* think that, you know nothing about people. So, as before, make your choice, live with the consequences.

I use the SOL and the SGS at the Barrows; the former for the melee brothers, the latter for the others (and the tunnel critters). I don't need the SOL spec at the Barrows.

Overall, the warrior ring is a superior choice over the berserker ring. The only possible exception is when fighting easy monsters where the miss rate is extremely low. Especially with your levels, the warrior ring is almost certainly preferable (in addition to being a lot cheaper). That of course is assuming the use of a slashing weapon... As for MA rings... while I haven't tested them specifically, tests with and without the berserker ring suggest that you are far better off spending that time doing just about *anything* else, unless you enjoy MA for its own sake.

Lots of good replies posted already, which again illustrate what the SGS is really about: flexibility. The SGS is also excellent at the Barrows, because that is a place where you frequently need a small amount of prayer for a short time -- no prayer is bad, and a whole prayer pot dose is a waste. If I meet Ahrim or Karil in the tunnels I fight until I am down a bit, then spec to heal the damage done and put on protection and Turmoil to finish him off. Very handy. Godswords are the best weapon for killing the giant mole as well. I think the BGS is slightly more useful here, but the SGS is a close second. Claws are useless. Back when I was doing dueling tournaments, the SGS's healing ability being able to work in no-food duels was handy. The AGS is the weapon that is really vastly overrated, for its price. There are very few situations where a few extra points of damage make much of a difference.

Hardly. Not sufficient for a lot of tougher monsters, unless you want to use prayer pots or spend every second prayer flipping (which I refuse to do). I usually use the SGS for both combat and spec. I know it's often slightly slower than a whip, but I enjoy it more so it doesn't bother me much. I'll test this at some point I suppose. Intuitively, though, I have a hard time believing that the d claw spec is much better than just using a DDS in most PvM situations.

Do you really want to waste that much money getting charms? Ask yourself how many hours it will take to earn the money you spend and put that into the equation. You may be better off sticking with waterfiends.

No problem. And if you're going to farm, grow wergali -- not irit.

With the SGS, healing familiars are mostly worthless. This is one of the ways that the SGS saves a LOT of money -- you can use a forager or BoB instead of a healer. It adds up very quickly. I use a bunyip rarely, and can't remember the last time I summoned a unicorn. Do the d claw proponents generally use them all the time, or only for the spec? If the latter, what do you use when not spec'ing?

Good "alternative" monsters to kill for cash: Snakes (Mos'Le Harmless) Aberrant Spectres Warped Tortoises Blue Dragons Chompy Birds Cave Horrors Spiritual Mages Cave Crawlers Tortoises Flesh Crawlers Aviansies Black Dragons Mighty Banshees Unicows Vampires Red Dragons Brine Rats

Dragons are usually the best bet.

Dozens of ways to make money. Need to define better what you like doing or what you want to do.

Okay, so you're a selfish [puncture]. If you're happy with being a selfish [puncture], then be one. I think it's better to be a decent person towards others, because I'd like them to be decent towards me. Guess I'm just funny that way. That's really all this boils down to, and I don't see any need to rehash long thread replies repeating the same thing. Either you are willing to sacrifice a few minutes of your own time to be respectful and considerate to others, or you're a self-absorbed person who contributes to the decline in the quality of the RS community. Your choice. PS I cannot believe how strict the censor is on this board. :rolleyes:

It's not really very estimable. But given that this works out to around what, 35k per day since I've had it, the number might actually be too low.

It really depends on the opponent. Doing four zeros on a critter with high defence doesn't help you any more than doing one zero. Dragon claws have a fancy special but are a very weak weapon overall. Yes, it's a luxury item for those who can afford it. But it is one of the most useful of luxury items. It's convenient and fun to use and enables modes of gameplay not easily accessible to those without it. In many ways the SGS is my "security blanket". I often have to test with a whip for various guides where I don't want to assume fancy expensive gear, and I always feel naked without the SGS. It's just comforting to know that I can pull some prayer and food "out of a hat" twice every 5 minutes. I paid 72m for mine the week after the GWD came out. I've probably saved half that much in food and potions since, and it's still worth roughly what it cost me.

The value of d claws is severely overestimated when it comes to fighting tough critters. It has a nice special but it is still a weak weapon that misses frequently -- you're talking a difference of about 75 points in both accuracy and strength. The SGS also has an undocumented bonus that comes into play in its special that appears to increase damage -- I always get higher hits with the special. If the goal is speed then it's necessary to look at everything in context. An SGS allows you to cut down on travel and banking time, and to save money on not just supplies but by being able to use a beast of burden to carry drops instead of a healing familiar. You can also use boosting prayers to enhance combat more easily.

Bladewing's "analysis" is nonsense, filled with silly assumptions and completely fabricated numbers. The SGS is the Swiss army knife of RuneScape weapons -- you certainly don't "need" it, and there are many tools you can use to replace its various functions, but it is an extremely handy all-in-one package. Those who own one know what it can do, and those who don't should really give it a try before deciding whether or not it's worth the money.

I wouldn't say I proved everything he said wrong. What he said was a confusing jumble; he'd need to be more clear about what he's claiming to prove it right or wrong.

I ask you what sort of testing you had in mind, and you respond with nonsense. Okay.