Is Total Score a good scoring system?

[Vaskor]

There is always an argument what is better to have: high Combat or high Total. I personally vote for high Total, but I also think that both scores are not very good in showing real skilling strength of the players. There are several issues with Total which I described in my blog here:

 

Total Score. Is it a good score system?

 

 

 

What do you think? Would you agree with the conclusions? Should Jagex think about making an additional score indicator for skillers?

[Happysniff]

I think you should add xp in there, because I find if you have more xp you own more 8-)

[stan18]

theres nothing special about having a high total/combat ratio. i like the site, having a high total score gets you "more respect on forums" hahaha

 

 

 

point is, no one needs a rating to tell them how proficient and well rounded they are when they play. people hate skilling, people hate combat, and some people don't mind either. i think thats simple enough

 

 

 

edit: i'd also like to mention that the system works off skill levels, not exp points, and so levels are not proportional to other levels, and combat stats. If you look at the xp charts, you'll see at lvl 93 you're only halfway to 99. that said, it would be unfair to compare a lvl 75 with higher total to a 126 with higher xp

[Vaskor]

Well, I am even more skeptical about total exp that total level. Reasons are:

 

-- exp gets much easier and quicker to gain on higher levels

 

-- same problem with people buying exp/levels paying for materials

 

-- same problem with different complexity of the skills.

 

-- possibility to get all your exp in combat stats and remain ignorant with non-combat skills

 

I don't thinks total exp really good for skiller score

[Primeaction]

i think total lvl shows a players strengths pretty well. I think if we added like a counter of how much xp we have in total would help as well because your total score could be like 200 but you have 99 wc. if you told someone that your total lvl is 200 they will probably think ur a noob

[vppunkrocker]

I think the leaderboards should go by total xp.

[highlanders]

Total exp because it's less biased than a total level.

 

 

 

By example, I have a lvl 126 friend who has around 1650 total level, but has 90M exp. I got around 1750 total level, but only 50M exp. There's no doubt in my mind she's better than I, she plays much more than I, continuously actually.

 

 

 

Someone could, by example, level all his levels at 80, and have a nice total lvl. But he wouldn't be better than someone who spent hours and hours getting a few level 99's, even if this last has lower total level.

[Smapla]

hey what about castle wars tickets :uhh:

[Elessar3019]

I think a player's success should be based on his exp, not level. If someone has 99 woodcutting, and has 26 million wc exp, but left all his other skills at or around 1, he would be looked down upon by a lot of the mid-combat-leveled players, while in fact, he would have put a lot more time into the game than they would have.

[xpx]

f2p is just a demo of the game, and it should not have seperate hiscores- afterall its their fault they cant pay a little sum of money per month they like playing.

 

 

 

And for the buyable skills part, it is just stupid- and theres no other word for it- do you think that money just drops out of a tree for some people? do you understand that it takes TIME to gain the raw materials for many buyable skills? ofcource there are some skills that are very easy that give fast experiance and gain money(melee, fletch+cook), but skills like construction and prayer are accually really hard- they are easy to level if you have the money, but you couldnt get the money back in any way from the skill.

[Bludragon124]

the best ranking system, so I saw a while ago, is to divide your total level by your combat level. I think it's like... 1-5: low 6-10: average 11-15: High 16-22: ultra high.

 

 

 

 

 

I read this a while ago, so I'm pulling those numbers out of the air.

 

 

 

The way I usually rank myself, though, is usually total/total experience.

[monkeyboo2]

total xp.

 

 

 

(-combat xp if comparing skiller to pcer lol) and take consideration for easy skills like fletch and cook

[Aresgodowar]

well im about 80k str xp from 99cb..and about 14k from lev 68 slayer...and i have 18m maby almost 19m xp total. and i feel that my levels were harder to gain back when. bc i never really had money untill about lev 90.. so i had to collect my own resources and my mage lev basically from 56 to 82 from pc(minus about 3-4ook xp from alchin). so for me i feel more accomplished that i got say 54 farming just from my own drops basically. it seems that when ppl do things without buying the skills that it has more meaning. like the ppl in f2p who have high prayer levs just from big bones.

[Evrae]

f2p is just a demo of the game, and it should not have seperate hiscores- afterall its their fault they cant pay a little sum of money per month they like playing.

 

 

 

 

Is it me, or is that a little random? It had nothing really to do with the subject, and almost makes it appear as if you have a hatred of people less well off than you. (I don't want to get into the whole p2p vs f2p argument). But while we are on the subject it strikes me that a high level in a skill on an f2per is more admirable - as its harder to level in f2p.

 

 

 

Anyway, back on topic. I like the idea of dividing total by combat level, because it is a combination of factors. If you could maybe work total experience into that as well, then it would be perfect.

 

 

 

EDIT - I was thinking about it, and came up with something. if you take the log, base 'a', of your total experience, where 'a' is your total level, you get a measure of how focused your skills are. For instance a level 99 autoer will have about 13M experience, and total level about 100. This work out as over 3. I have nearly 1500 total level, and 15M experience, working out at just over 2. Zezima works out at 2.6

 

 

 

Not perfect, perhaps not even useful, but I find it interesting.

[NJE03]

I think total experience is a better way to measure the highscores than simply total level. The article makes some valid points.

 

 

 

Here is an example of a flaw in current highscores:

 

My total level/total exp.

 

1,255/90,299,816

 

 

 

And the person one rank above me.

 

1,256/4,622,375

[Harrington]

I personally think the actual overall experience total is the most impressive.

[xpx]

I personally think the actual overall experience total is the most impressive.

 

Total experiance is even more biased than skill total- when counting skill total, 200m fletch experiance gives you 99 total levels, but a 15.38 time edge compared to someone with 99 fletching, and that would only encourage people to train the fast, easy and cheap skills to 200m.

 

 

 

I currently have 280M experiance with 2175 skill total- there could be someone with 327 total and more than 600M experiance(200m cooking fletching thieving), but that doesnt mean he is more than 2 times better than i am.

[Vaskor]

f2p is just a demo of the game, and it should not have seperate hiscores- afterall its their fault they cant pay a little sum of money per month they like playing.

 

 

 

There are 1M P2P players and 4M F2P players. There is no way a scoring system can/should ignore 4/5 of the players in the game.

 

 

 

And for the buyable skills part, it is just stupid- and theres no other word for it- do you think that money just drops out of a tree for some people? do you understand that it takes TIME to gain the raw materials for many buyable skills?

 

I don't disagree (except for the 'stupid' part of it :) ). I am not taking credit from people who earned their money in the game. But look: buyable skills are MUCH easier to raise! How many people have Cooking or Fletching capes? And how many people have Hunting or Slayer capes? My point that the scoring system should give MORE points/weight to the skills which cannot be bought up.

 

 

 

EDIT - I was thinking about it, and came up with something. if you take the log, base 'a', of your total experience, where 'a' is your total level, you get a measure of how focused your skills are. For instance a level 99 autoer will have about 13M experience, and total level about 100. This work out as over 3. I have nearly 1500 total level, and 15M experience, working out at just over 2. Zezima works out at 2.6

 

 

 

You know, it IS very interesting observation. I think you are right and your method can be used to judge how focused the skills are.

 

 

 

hey what about castle wars tickets

 

 

 

Yeah :-) But how would you track it? same goes for other minigames. There is no way to track how proficient people are in the minigames.

 

 

 

Regarding total exp, I wrote earlier in this topic. I think it has the same fundamental flaws as total level.

[anonymouse_]

It's fine the way it is.

 

 

 

If you choose to ignore combat or other parts of the game, I don't see why you should be given credit for it.

[pandaownage]

I agree with the xp idea, but I think it depends on the player.

 

 

 

If you would rather have a high total you might be a skiller.

 

But the oppisite with high combat.

 

 

 

Even though part of your high total may be combat :wink:

[piman1053]

hey what about castle wars tickets :uhh:

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure c wars ticket counts only apply to high-levels like you. :wink:

 

 

 

OT: I think it is, just because people who train low stats (Ard) are more honorable than power 99ers (like me :-# ). However, I think that the highscores list should include a few other things (but this is coming from the guy who runs stats on his stats):

 

 

 

combat (big one)

 

STDV (I'd be nice)

 

total/combat (to see if somebody's a skiller or a killer)

 

the ability to peek into ranks of more than 1000000 (useful in some cases, like seeing if pures have 1 def or 45)

[Made0f12une]

f2p is just a demo of the game, and it should not have seperate hiscores- afterall its their fault they cant pay a little sum of money per month they like playing.

 

 

 

And for the buyable skills part, it is just stupid- and theres no other word for it- do you think that money just drops out of a tree for some people? do you understand that it takes TIME to gain the raw materials for many buyable skills? ofcource there are some skills that are very easy that give fast experiance and gain money(melee, fletch+cook), but skills like construction and prayer are accually really hard- they are easy to level if you have the money, but you couldnt get the money back in any way from the skill.

 

 

 

You can in construction of people actually bought flatpack items

[xpx]

Firstly, i did not say the hiscores should ignore free players, i just pointed out that they don't deserve seperate hiscores for not paying for the games development.

 

 

 

Secondly, you cant really class cooking and fletching as a buyable skill- you dont accually need any money to level it more than making it a little less comfortable when buying selling the goods, infact cooking sharks and fletching yew bows yields quite a nice profit.

 

 

 

There are some other flaws for your plan aswell- when counting the easy skills for less, it doesnt take into consideration that some people accually got all those skills to 99 the hard way- bashing undead beings with a dragon battleaxe or cooking while clicking every item you chose to cook.

 

 

 

Made0f12une- it takes 80k mahogany planks for 80-99 construction, where the hell could you find more than 5 thousand players wanting full mahogany house? ill tell you- nowhere.

[kdb148]

 

 

 

hey what about castle wars tickets

 

 

 

Yeah :-) But how would you track it? same goes for other minigames. There is no way to track how proficient people are in the minigames.

 

 

 

That's the thing, though. What about someone with full gold cwars armor? Even winning every single game you play, it takes a total time of almost 900 hours playing cwars to get that armor, and more realistically, closer to 2000 hours. Most 99s probably don't take nearly as much time to accomplish. Does the fact that someone spent 2000 hours racking up 10 or 20 million total xp more impressive than the guy who spent 2000 hours getting full gold cwars armor?

[Bard_Bow_Man]

Both are inaccurate, however; I think total lvls is usuually more accurate.