elpaladin

Perhaps I was a little coarse in my criticism, but I feel that I raised completely valid arguments , and I stand by my previous assertions.

That and it only applies to certain players. Any good system should work for all players.

I've always had a problem with scales like this. First of all, they don't take into account how skill points are distributed beyond combat, for instance two characters with 1600 skill total are not comparable if one has a lot of 70s and 80s level skills while one has a few lower level skills with higher concentration of effort in a handful of 90+ skills. These characters are clearly not equal, and though they would have to be examined side by side, often those with a concentration of higher skills and a few lower skills as opposed to relatively balanced stats will have far more total experience points, which this scale also completely ignores. I, for instance, am currently 1545 skill total and 113 combat. However, I wasn't around very long for Slayer and have only a level of 65, and construction and farming levels of 1. I am now F2p and cannot raise these skills any longer, nor do I plan on getting p2p anytime soon to raise them. This gives me a ratio of 13.67 while a typical player of my skill total would probably these days only have 90-100 combat, having an extra 100+ skill levels that they could easily potentially gain without gaining a single combat level. This means in effect that their average skill level will be lower than mine, meaning less high leveled skills and less overall experience. Counterintuitively though, your formula says that their character is superior to mine, with an average of 15 levels per combat level. Not only is that inaccurate, they probably also lack a lot of the experience and perspective I have from having most likely played longer than the typical person with a sub-1600 skill total these days. The fallacy in this system becomes even more apparent when discussing people who haven't started using any of the new RS2 skills period, old schoolers with relatively low skill totals and insanely high combat levels. The dumbest thing about these scales though is that they assume that having combat is somehow a bad thing, or that by somehow devoting more time to non-combat skills than combat, a character magically becomes better. Clearly that was not how the creators of the game intended things to be, and not how many have really percieved the game, or we would not see the amount of level 126 characters that we do. This rating system also kindly ignores the fact that Magic, Prayer and Range (which supposedly diminish the quality of a character by raising its combat level relative to its total level) are among the most expensive (and in the case of prayer, time consuming) to raise and instead indicates that they are somehow less valueable than firemaking and agility, two of the cheapest and easier to level skills in the game, but which nonetheless supposedly improve the quality of the character by enhancing the numerator in this equation, which is total skill level. And finally, this system examines a ratio only. Would a character with 1500 skill total and 100 combat (ratio of 15/1) be better than a character with 1800 skill total and 126 combat? (14.3/1)

Randoms are meant to deter autos, so if you're in the same spot for an extended period of time, you better believe Jagex's system is watching you.