Saradomin_Mage

Rogues' Den?

Apparently according to tests ability DPS is tied to weapon tier, not weapon damage. Source They're tied to weapon tier in that they're tied to weapon damage and speed. In a normal tier, you have (for 1h weapons) 1. Fastest (4 tick) weapons, with damage of 9.6*tier 2. Fast (5 tick) weapons, with damage of 12.25*tier 3. Average (6 tick) weapons, with damage of 14.9*tier When you use an ability, a penalty is applied on any weapons slower than Fastest so that the damage is equalised because all abilities are the same speed. It's 20% for Fast weapons and 33% for Average weapons. The EEE happens to be weird because it's 1. A tier 70 offhand weapon 2. Has tier 70 accuracy 3. Has tier 70 fast speed offhand damage (6.125*tier) 4. Has fastest speed. So it doesn't get a penalty for speed because it's fastest. You can compare it to a "real" level 70 offhand with the correct damage for speed, and you'll find that EEE comes ahead in damage output on abilities.

What makes you think the EoC and HTML5 teams are linked? One is entirely gameplay and mechanics, the other is completely engine-side.

They're modified for ability DPS, reduced based on their speed ratings, so generally the most important thing to look out for is a high tier. EEE happens to be a level 70 weapon with level 70 accuracy buy level 89 off-hand damage.

EEE cheats because it has the damage rating of a tier 89 offhand.

Battlestaves and mystic staves are 5 tick, so they're worse than the longsword. The question is whether the ancient staff (mystic staff stats with 4 tick speed) is better than d long :P I remember using it to kill waterfiends back in the day.

The scim's just a better weapon because of its speed. In most cases the difference in accuracy (4 points?) is very negligible, since you'd be training on monsters with low defences in the first place. The additional strength bonus the longsword gets (I think 8 points) doesn't make up for the speed difference between them (scim is 25% faster), and additional strength bonuses from other equipment such as defenders/gloves would as such benefit the scimitar more than the longsword. All in all there's very little point in using the longsword as a training weapon, or at all.

Forever Quyneax. Oh wait, this thread has become serious business, I'd better scuttle off ...

That's the idea - he wants items that he can park his money on and then watch them appreciate in value. Implement a new status symbol and let people play with the ex-rares for the hell of it. Not everything has to be about power and status, or its acquisition. EDIT: Also evaluate the rest of my post, thanks.

I'd rather rares (tradeable holiday items) be implemented as untradeables that can be obtained in a manner similar to court summonses/spin tickets. Also disable the chance of obtaining a duplicate so that you can eventually round out your collection. This would allow rares to fulfil their original purpose, as a fun little item for you to play with. If you're having problems of not being able to store enough wealth, they could add other forms of storage akin to spirit shards - for instance, add an option to buy promissory notes from bankers in any bank, at the cost of 100k per note, and allow them to be traded back at any time for the same 100k. If you need a way to store your wealth that isn't linked to GP (i.e. you need a discontinued item), implement the promissory note as a buyable item from a wandering NPC (preferably named Fulandis Mony) to make them slightly more difficult to obtain, if need be. To make them discontinued, give the NPC a heart attack after a set amount have been purchased globally (100? 1000? 10k?). This would nicely create a new discontinued item that isn't too common, by directly limiting the amount in-game. If you want to make distribution of it more fair, perhaps remove the cost but allow each player who finds him to only claim one of the item, after which he teleports to wander in a different location?

Probably alch price? Not totally sure though.

I'm interested. Do you mean stuff like saying a few chants while mixing potions to give a chance of extra XP/an extra dose (increased benefit), or something like a mantra while cooking to reduce your chance of burning food (reduced penalty)?

oh wat wsw? remember a rubberfruit a day keeps the brain cells away

Aura or scrimshaw? Confused over the whole vampirism thing now lol.

No loafers at all lol Think I also crashed a bunch of Dutch people who organised the game

Gave it up for I think the same reason that you did :P Thought all the scrimshaws worked with abilities too though? Haven't actually played with a single one yet, but I read up that you could do some pretty nasty things with the Cruelty scrim and abilities.

THE NEXT POSTER WILL CRANK IT UP TO ELEVEN

Right. What a celebration. TNPW do SOMETHING.

Sinkhan you are alive wow

Their main issue was mostly likely trying to keep the kills/hr at a level similar to pre-EoC, given certain (ex-)valuable slayer drops from abyssal demons et al.

So that's where all your unrealistic expectations of Jagex are coming from, lol. The current look/feel of the armours make total sense, especially Death Lotus: Gear worn by deadly, stealthy assassins isn't going to be as flashy as Pernix. As it is the current version with a huge pauldron on the left shoulder is a bit over the top.

The reason they want so few is so that everyone who's doing them will be doing them all at once. There's no point to it if there's no competition, so there has to be a good crowd for every warband. If they capped it at 3 a day (the most you can do in a 24 hour period atm) and doubled the rate to 4 hourly (so there's only 6 in a 24 hour period) how exactly would they become super sparse? The trouble with 8 hourly, as i covered in my post, is it can end up with a cycle where you can never actually reach the content. It's simple. You've now spread out all those people over twice as many spots, and so you have half the player density per game. They want a really high player density per game in order to enable the pk-er aspect they want. Not entirely true. If more people can access the content due to the run times not excluding them entirely then you'd get like 150-200% more players per day than from the 8 hour games, so even with the extra time slots player density wouldn't take too much of a hit. Plus like I said it wouldn't become super sparse - they'd still be enough for a decent competitive pker element. It's all very well extolling the virtues of the 8 hour cycle, especially if you CAN get there - but it doesn't alter the fact its a poor choice as it is entirely possible that a lot of people simply cannot play at any of the times. It's all nice and dandy to make a D&D occur more frequently and then limit the amount of times you can play it per day, but tell me, when Sinkholes was running on its 30 minute reset cycle, did you ever manage to get a game going 8 hours or later after the reset? Either way it's going to screw people from certain timezones/lifestyles out of being able to play this piece of content the maximum number of times per day; at least the 8 hour cycle makes sense in that it caters to each major continent of players, and by making it much less frequent, people who want to play will definitely make an attempt to show up whenever the next warband is about to gather because they might not get another chance in that day.

You can withhold from doing Royal Trouble if you want to purely harvest maples from your kingdom, instead of mixing in slightly less profitable coal. Should be 10 to maple with only Throne of Misc.