Sly_Wizard

Being forced to play WoW sounds pretty awesome, actually.

It's a shame the hats don't record previous PK's, but I guess there was no way to encode that. Ah well, useless update as far as I'm concerned.

I totally agree with this post :( I raged because some complete n00b sniped my hex about a week back. Not only did he not kill the soulgazer (he couldn't), but he couldn't even wield the bow. And he bound it instead of giving like I asked! Which wouldn't be so bad if he was 100 dung, but he wasn't, and he unbound his weapon for it. The worst thing is that he's probably long since destroyed it by now. ...And that is why I learned to not dung on 117.

Celestial Cat Staff. The gloves. Srsly. Anywho...

OMG someone else remembers that! It was on the second floor of the Blue Moon Inn. ...I won't tell you all how I knew about that.

Get a friend to give you some money so you can go staking again.

No, what they are suggesting is that a melee'er bind a magic weapon. That's dumb because, as I've said time and time again, he not only makes himself comparatively worse than melee'ers his level, but also a mage his level. If you're going to have someone dedicated to maging then-- guess what?-- get a mage. There is NO reason why a melee'er should be binding a CCS.

Bind a CSB and cast air surge against the primal warrior. Congratulations, you just lowered your DPS. :thumbup: ...On 40% of the monsters while increasing it on 60% of the others. Way too black and white. You do realize that mage-able monsters are often the slowest monsters to kill in GDs, right? And it's not just warriors. I'm honestly confused by your lack of understanding here, so I'm afraid I can't take you seriously anymore. I really should have shrugged you off when you admitted to having never used a third bind, but alas, I made a mistake and I have to live with it. lol, I seem to have a better understanding than anyone here. Most of the mageable monsters in dung have low LP's. The only two with high LP's that I can think of of the top of my head are are black demons and fire giants, though that problem can be easily solved by having one dedicated mage attack them from the start while everyone else clears out the non-mageables. Generally, by the time they finish, the mage should have killed them and if not, then everyone can pile them. Rarely do you see a room with a bunch of mageable monsters with high LP's running around. Edit: Oh, yeah. Warriors have low LP's. You can usually kill them within 5 or so casts, even the primal ones.

Bind a CSB and cast air surge against the primal warrior. So let's look at this again 2 people getting excellent DPS OR 1 person getting excellent DPS and the other getting mediocre DPS HMM WHICH IS BETTER The second is better. You see, xpx said-- to which Ob later agreed-- that a CCS is only better on 40% of the monsters. If this is true, then a melee'er (which is what I'm guessing is what they think) is better off making himself better against 60% of the monsters and foregoing a CCS in favor of barehanded casting instead of binding a CCS and making his or herself comparatively worse against the other 60%. It's quite simple, really, and no amount of disagreement will make it any less simple than that.

Bind a CSB and cast air surge against the primal warrior.

If that's an inefficient set-up, then it means that the melee'er isn't maxing his damage output. If he's not maxing his damage output, then the disparity between him and the trade-off (s)he makes by binding a staff instead of something which makes him/her more effective at melee grows larger once (s)he adopts an efficient melee set-up. Think about it. If you were to put forth an even better set-up for the melee'er, then you would only make the case that (s)he is better off focusing on melee than (s)he would by trying to focus on melee and magic, therefore harming your own point. And see my first comment. No, what I said was that it's better to make yourself better against 60% of the monsters in a dungeon in favor of 40% of them.

No, but if you'd notice I was comparing max hits. Though I'm sure if you want to compare damage output, then we could do that, too :thumbsup:. You do realize that doesn't much help your point, correct? If something like a battleaxe would be a better comparison because it has a higher damage output than a maul even though it has a lower max hit, then it would mean that melee becomes even more comparatively better (yeah, I'm sure that's grammatically incorrect) than does magic, meaning in actuality you lose more when you decide to forego your melee in favor of binding a magic staff. Juuust so you know :rolleyes:

First, let's look at the merits of binding a CCS if you're a melee'er. xpx clearly stated that fire surge with a CCS is only best on around 40% of the monsters, meaning I'm going to assume he thinks that on the other 60% of the monsters, melee is best. Assuming level 100 dungeoneering, we could have the following two set-ups: Set-up #1 99 strength SSH Primal Maul Primal Gauntlets CSB +178 strength Melee: Assuming no prayer modifiers that correlates to a max hit of 420, topping out at 540 with turmoil. Magic: Max hit of 220/240/260/280 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively. (Not going to take pots into consideration.) Set-up #2 99 strength SSH Chaotic Maul CCS +166 strength Melee: Assuming no prayer modifiers, that correlates to a max hit of 400, topping out at 514 with turmoil. Magic: Max hit of 286/312/338/364 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively. So by binding a CCS over something like primal gauntlets, you give up between 20 and 26 points of damage on 60% of the monsters to gain between 66 and 84 points of damage on 40% of the monsters. Of course, since they are "easy" to make, then the melee'er in set-up #1 can "easily" make an empowered staff. Taking that into account, his/her max hit with air/water/earth/fire surge increases to 242/264/286/308, meaning (s)he only loses out on between 42 and 56 damage on 40% of the monsters. And this is without taking into addition melee pots, which will widen the imbalance completely because melee pots can be supplemented by damage increasing prayers, while mage pots cannot. Going back to the previous: Set-up #1 99 strength Strong melee pot Any magic pot SSH Primal Maul Primal Gauntlets CSB +178 strength Melee: Assuming no prayer modifiers, that correlates to a max hit of 523, topping out at 675 with turmoil. Magic: Max hit of 266/290/314/338 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively, w/o an empowered staff. -Max hit of 288/314/340/366 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively, with an empowered staff. Set-up #2 99 strength Strong melee pot Any magic pot SSH Chaotic Maul CCS +166 strength Melee: Assuming no prayer modifiers, that correlates to a max hit of 497, topping out at 642 with turmoil. Magic: Max hit of 332/362/392/422 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively. (Someone check my math here, as I think I'm forgetting something and am understating the melee max hits.) So in this instance, you give up between 26 and 33 damage on 60% of the monsters go gain between 44 and 56 damage on 40% of the monsters. Good luck explaining the logic behind that one. In essence, your argument is that a melee'er is better of by making his or herself worse against most monsters while better against a minority of them? Hahaha! No, sorry. Only a moron would do that (harsh, yes). A melee'er who binds a magic weapon makes himself comparatively worse to not only other melee'ers his level, but also to a mage his level. Any melee'er who binds a CCS is wasting a bind better spent on increasing his damage output in the form of combat (s)he uses the most. It would seriously be like me binding a melee weapon at 100 dung.

:rolleyes: @ this post Let's start over, shall we? Your "tactics", as it relates to maging, are hogwash. I don't need to have a third bind to realize that what you suggest is sup-optimal to the extreme. I've asked two or three times now for anyone to show me someone who uses melee as their primary form of combat who has binded a CCS, and every time neither you nor xpx have shows me such an individual. I wonder why? Again, no one in their right mind is going to bind a CCS when they're mostly using melee-- especially if, as xpx asserts, mage isn't as good as melee on the majority of monsters. If anything, they'd just bind some primal guantlets and be more effective one more monsters than they otherwise would be if they just binded a CCS. That's not hard to understand (or so you'd think). Here's a question for you; if a CCS is so good, did you bind one?

You mean it's not intended for someone with common sense lol :rolleyes:. Why, oh why, would any melee'er ever bind a weapon they're going to use a minority of the time, especially when that weapon is not integral to using that form of combat? You'd be better off making yourself more effective at your primary form of combat and barehand casting wind surge than you would making yourself better at magic, which you're going to be using a minority of time, while not bettering your melee. That just doesn't make any sense. Nope. Just your lowly 97 with hood and empowered staff :razz: Not true. You shouldn't use range as your primary combat style usually, but if you get a hex then it becomes quite viable as a form of primary combat. To claim that magic isn't a good primary combat style is just ignorant, to be honest. That's an outright lie. I would love to see you pick up that many runes within the first 5 - 7 minutes of a dungeon. In fact, I'd like to follow you around in a dungeon as a test, and I'd guarantee you that within your first 10 rooms even if you killed every single monster that you wouldn't have picked up anywhere near that amount without some insane amount of luck. Your entire argument is based on a faulty premise, that being that you can easily collect 600 elemental runes and 500 essence just from monster drops within the first >7 minutes of a dungeon. I've been using mage as my primary combat method for a while, and I can safely say that what you're saying is nowhere even close to true, and anyone who has ever maged for any significant time within Daemonheim can tell you this.

25 casts will last you maybe four GD's.

Well, assuming he is a terrible dungeoneer, there is no point to prove. It's all about time and how quickly you can be effective. I'm assuming you have a CSB here. 125 fire surges means 1,250 fire runes. Assuming you get three fires from one essence (that's what I get), you'll have to buy (or find) approximately 417 essence before you can start using fire surge with a CCS. Either way, you're getting out of the proverbial gate slower. If you buy the essence, which you'll most likely have to do, at 50 coins per essence, that works out to you needing 20,850 coins before you can start casting fire surge. Prior to that, you'll more-or-less be using a CCS boosted wind surge which has a lower DPS than does fire surge with an empowered fire staff. Now, if you're like me and you mostly mage the whole way through dungeoneering, then you'll probably need more than the initial 125 surges contained in a CSB. If you were to use the log-out trick (which, ftr, I don't) with a CSB, then you would never have to make any runes while using an empowered fire staff, whereas even if you used a CCS and used the log-out trick, you'd still have to make another 1,250 fire runes, meaning another 20,850 coins and time spent runecrafting versus being useful to your team (i.e., opening doors or clearing rooms). Even if you didn't use the log-out trick, you'd still end up needing more money and spend more time runecrafting than you would if you used an empowered fire staff, which means less time being useful to your team unless they're going to wait around for you. Most monsters you'd mage have such low magic defense anyway, to the point where the +30% damage on the CCS is negligible when compared to the time saved using an empowered fire staff. And, yes, I used to own a CCS until I got rid of it in favor of an empowered fire staff. Best decision ever.

Empowered fire staff > Celestial catalytic staff

I still hold that no one will get 200M xp in all skills. At the earliest, no one is going to get there before 2013 (assuming gratuitous playing time), and there's a good chance that someone will lose interest in Runescape by then or scale down their playing time. Anyway, I'm curious as to how many hours per day some of these people are playing, and how old they are.

That is quite a bit of an oversimplification, really.

I'd rather play 5K games of CW and get 200M RC exp than get 4K chompy kills.

It's a shame we can't see when we created our accounts.

Without reading the thread, what are the prices on a red and white party hat? I'd like to at the very least sell one of them, preferably the white.

I'm real late to the party here, but I cannot express how much Jagex should do this. It would actually get me playing again. And even PK'ing, which I haven't done since about 2007/2008.

5m 5 years ago was worth bloody much more than 100m nowadays. inflation is just crazy... I don't think so. 100M today is still worth a lot more than 5M five years ago, unless you're going to assume 2000% inflation in five years...