Thai_tong

How about we start off with a simple skill, herblore. I think the calculator would have to check the productivity of each potion as new ones are unlocked so there would be a lot of steps to the calculation. At 96 the xp that would be got from the herbicide from slayer and possibly combat training should be added.

Many things you can get 100% accuracy on with the incorrect spell type so you can just use the cheapest. Excluding ice barrage because it freezes monsters which makes it harder to cluster them the next cheapest is fire.

The program can't decide itself because you don't know what someone's income will be at every point in their goal to max and your program doesn't know either.

You can't tell people to do broad arrows to 99 fletching @ Livid when they don't have the money for runes/arrows. You need to take into account +/- gp/h for all methods you're going to use training. GP is a crucial variable just like xp. I think of a maxing calculator as the solution for the smallest possible sum(a1:an) of a sum of vectors: a1[] + a2[] + a3[] + ... + an[], where each vector has 26 (or more) components, being xp/time in all 25 skills, gp/time, maybe effigies/time or produce/time as well. You start at a state x, with so and so much xp in those skills, this amount of gp etc. etc. - these and those vectors are available at state x, now you have to find a combination of them to get to point y, using the least amount of vectors possible, taking into account that more vectors may become available as you move. Idk, it makes an easy to way to think about it but I can't do the actual math :(. Thats not what I meant. In an actual calculator I think you should let someone choose their method, you don't force them to fletch broads. If you wanted to you could calculate their cost for their method but I was not talking about the actual calculator. I was talking about the part you think is fun which is finding the fastest way to max from the start. Depending on how far you are progressed in the game your income will change which means it may be worth making oak larders if you are not progressed and mahogany tables if you are well progress. Now good luck to you in your quest to find the fastest time to max, you'll have to decide whether a fast expensive method is worth doing at a given level which is impossible really.

Oh god here we go again... finding income when just out of the tutorial and up until you've maxed.

That is up to this person and not really something we can pinpoint in the calculator. You have to include it somehow. An individual wont know the answer to that question either and you don't want someone to get stuck at the user interface so I suggest only getting them to put in their average hours/day which is something they do know. From their hours per day you can estimate the number of days they'll be playing for. That is something optional that only should be considered to put into the calculator once the global outline has been finished. Its part of the global plan :P

That is up to this person and not really something we can pinpoint in the calculator. You have to include it somehow. An individual wont know the answer to that question either and you don't want someone to get stuck at the user interface so I suggest only getting them to put in their average hours/day which is something they do know. From their hours per day you can estimate the number of days they'll be playing for.

How would you decide how many times someone does daily activities?

Well that little fact sounds contrived. People are likely to have done many quests by the time they are interested in maxing and want to use this tool. You should focus on what needs to be researched in order to get a working calculator that is off by 20 hours because it didn't count time to do quests. When it is working you can work on improving accuracy.

One doesn't have to consider them if neglecting them has a small effect. Getting caught up on small details just leads to a burn out trying to account for everything and neglecting bigger parts of such a project. True, there are some quests I listed that isn't needed.... Would you read what I said. I didnt say that doing those quests wasn't efficient I said that accounting for them is a waste of effort.

One doesn't have to consider them if neglecting them has a small effect. Getting caught up on small details just leads to a burn out trying to account for everything and neglecting bigger parts of such a project.

How about we just assume they have done all the quests so that an individual doesn't have to state every quest they haven't done... You're getting caught up on all the small things.

I know there are a lot of people at dagganoth but its not really a bleeping cabbage :P I do think summoning familiars should be buffed though.

With the bestiary for defence levels maybe we can find the attack level of the cannon now Edit. They changed the system again http://[Use Quick Find Code]/[Please Use QuickFind Code]?15,16,843,64954415# seems like it was just weakness modifiers.

If my true accuracy is 'a' then the chance of me hitting 150 times is (a)^150 If I'm 95% sure then I want the chance of me hitting when I actually could miss to be less than 0.05. 0.05 is the chance it was just a coincidence that I hit 150 times. 0.05<(a)^150 0.9802<a and chance of missing is less than 1.98% I made a mistake in the statement of it though, I said "I'm 99% sure my accuracy is less" when I should have said "I'm 99% sure my chance of missing is less"

To test if accuracy can indeed be 100% I tried using a dragon scimitar (2344 accuracy) against bruno who was 1213 armour and was wearing a range weapon. By that formula my hit chance should be (2344\(1.4*1213)*90= 124% accurate. (or 103% if range is weak not weakest to melee) I attacked 150 times and didn't miss once. With this data I'm 99% sure my chance of missing is less than 3.03% or 95% sure my accuracy is less than 1.98%. Edit. I also used attack pots/brews to check attack level's contribution to attack bonus or "accuracy" as Jagex call it. I checked every level https://docs.google....p1RUdydlE#gid=1 the numbers are the same for defence level's contribution to armour

You must be envious because people always post combat research on Q

Those are both good things

Sadly these calculators are bound to come under criticism about their accuracy no matter how accurate you make them. I am actually most interested in how to simplify the summation.

I'm curious about how that works. Also people seem to be missing that there is a lot of choice involved. I'd say there are 3 commonly used methods for most skills.

Cheers. So it does increase from 117 to 119

I'm scared. I do not know what lies in wait for this thread when there are no more slay updates.

Nice distance

Charms rates are from wiki =S.... Only charm rates from aquanites and everything introduced after strykewyrms have rates from wiki. The rest are from Zarfot.

Since we now know xp only increases every 2nd floor I took another look at the I took a closer look at grimy's data and where he uses a formula to predict floor xp for higher floors based on data for lower floors is a bit off. I took another look at the data comparing max floor xp and challenge xp. The challenge xp was nearly constantly 8 times the floor xp. I am removing the level 108 info someone provided because it sticks out like a sore thumb. This is a graph of the difference between the previous floor xp http://puu.sh/2yRDb So grimy's predictions seem to be off by almost a fixed amount. It turns out that him underestimating by 247xp gives figures that best match the trend of [challenge xp]= 8*[base floor xp] so from now on I will use that figure to adjust floors 42+ We could even work backwards and get better figures for base xp by dividing the challenge xp by 8. The tricky part still remains, to find the function relating floor and base xp. The graph for it is here http://puu.sh/2yTtW I'm open to suggestions.