Slayer Sucks

[compfreak847]

No mate, all I am saying is that the content of this thread is similar in structure to a debating thread. Really, I am not condemning you for providing factual information that persuades the people who read this thread. In fact, I would prefer that all threads include as much information and thought put into them as yours. I am just merely saying that with so much information provided and debates occurring, this is more of a debate thread.

 

 

Please point out the debate to me. I posted a rant; certain people disagreed, and I provided the evidence to show I was correct. The evidence was simply backing up my original post and proving its point; taking it out would in no way detract from the thread.

[JacTise69]

No mate, all I am saying is that the content of this thread is similar in structure to a debating thread. Really, I am not condemning you for providing factual information that persuades the people who read this thread. In fact, I would prefer that all threads include as much information and thought put into them as yours. I am just merely saying that with so much information provided and debates occurring, this is more of a debate thread.

 

 

Please point out the debate to me. I posted a rant; certain people disagreed, and I provided the evidence to show I was correct. The evidence was simply backing up my original post and proving its point; taking it out would in no way detract from the thread.

 

 

 

Doesn't providing evidence to counter disagreements kind of constitute a debate?

 

 

 

But for that matter almost every single rant in this forum falls under that heading. Someone posts a complaint, some people agree and some people don't. Then the two sides argue until their blue in the face about who's right or one of them proves the other wrong (usually the side you're on).

[compfreak847]

Doesn't providing evidence to counter disagreements kind of constitute a debate?

 

Nope, just supporting my point.

 

 

 

 

But for that matter almost every single rant in this forum falls under that heading. Someone posts a complaint, some people agree and some people don't. Then the two sides argue until their blue in the face about who's right or one of them proves the other wrong (usually the side you're on).

 

But this isn't really an argument, it's just establishing whos numbers are correct - and mine were proven to be.

[JacTise69]

Most people would consider that a debate, but I looked it up for laughs and giggles and the literal definition is

 

 

 

"Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examine what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is technique of persuasion."

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

 

 

 

So by definition this falls under factual argument.

 

 

 

Glad I got that cleared up.

[compfreak847]

Most people would consider that a debate, but I looked it up for laughs and giggles and the literal definition is

 

 

 

"Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examine what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is technique of persuasion."

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

 

 

 

So by definition this falls under factual argument.

 

 

 

Glad I got that cleared up.

 

But it's not, since the so called 'factual argument' was not why this thread was started and is not currently going on; threads arn't moved to the debate forum and back every time someone disagrees with the OP :|

[pureprayer]

:!:

[ydrasil]

There have been many replies since I last posted, and more than a few annoy me considerably. Most of those come from either compfreak847 or pureprayer. The reason why is along the same lines for both.

 

 

 

Many replies that compfreak847 has made over the past few pages are essentially about the rates. Whenever someone posted their rates (while I admit not comprehensive are still valid) you have mentioned a fair few times something to this effect:

 

 

 

Oh, and it's going to required hundreds or thousands of hours of testing to upset the results of me, ydraisel, qeltar, and (to some extent) Zarfot. Good luck.

 

 

 

This part is incredibly flawed in such a way that you are grouping all the people together. By saying "upset", you would be meaing to disprove the current rates given (or something to that effect)? Here in lies the problem, that is impossible. You propose someone should do "hundreds or thousands of hours" of testing in order to simultaneously disprove you, me, Qeltar and Zarfot. Please tell me i'm not the only one that can see the flaw here. If he were to disprove your rates, that more or less means it proves mine. The flaw is you have grouped together under the false pretence that they are the same. It comes down to I have shown my side which shows Slayer as good. Zarfot and Qeltar aren't arguing their point, but Zarfot's guide shows that Slayer is good. Then there is you.

 

 

 

This brings me to my next point. You have also mentioned many times something to this effect:

 

 

 

Also, it was a lot of text to prove it was worse combat XP.

 

But I will never give up the fight, even if I have to get 99 slayer, unless it is CONCLUSIVELY proven worse.

 

 

 

Now I am not so sure we were posting in the same thread. I don't recall it ever being proven worse. More to the point, you have never even showed us your rates. I mean detailed rates which you expect everyone else to give but have not done so yourself. Just so there is no misunderstanding here, you say it was proven worse. Worse compared to what? Armoured Zombies? Sure you have given a rate there (which I have to point out is essentially a max, whereas the rates I have supplied for Slayer are still a fair bit from max), but what are you even comparing it to? Obviously not the rates I have supplied, otherwise you would realise the Slayer is more efficient than Zombies.

 

 

 

That brings up this point:

 

 

 

I'm complaining that people seem to suffer from the delusion that slayer IS the best way to train combat.

 

 

 

Is this not a matter of interpretation? You require facts and yet you supply this phrase which is purely subjective in nature. How do you define 'best'? Is what is best for you best for someone else also? There are really only 3 key elements for determining what is best however, how much of each element taken into account goes according to the person. The elements are simply fun, profit and experience (simple enough). As such, there can never be a 'delusion' that Slayer is best. It may be best for some and not others (I fall into Slayer is best for me category).

 

 

 

Bad xp/money

 

No one has beat him in 64 pages

 

Issue is bad xp

 

No, the xp rates are done with. The facts are here, and slayer is bad xp/money. Its a rant to get it changed or to stop people getting slayer biased.

 

This could be slayer vs. armored zombies, but after lots of testing it is a fact.

 

 

 

While pureprayer did post this, it isn't so much the person that is the problem. It is the type of response indicated here. Pureprayer has been posting in this thread for a long time now and yet still manages to skip over any and all 'facts'. "Bad xp/money" is subjective and not factual (the word bad is the subjective part). The next part of the quote... I can't seem to think of the right word for it, but it does show pureprayer is being (in at least some way) sycophantic. I say this because he is under the "delusion" (here is where that word goes : ) that compfreak847 has never been proven wrong in this thread. That is utter nonsense.

 

 

 

The next part of the quote is quite contradictory. Like I asked compfreak847, i'll ask you. What are your rates for Slayer? Or at the very least what do you think they are (incase you haven't tested it)? In other words, what is the rate you are using to compare Slayer to the rest?

 

 

 

Finally, i'll bring up my opinion here. Overall from the posts I have read, I can only surmise this thread is a fake (i'll explain). I've noticed it for some time but i'll explain why now. I believe the true purpose of this thread was never that Slayer was good or bad, but actually just compfreak847 wanting a debate (as everyone knows he likes them). The reason I bring this up? Over and over so many facts have been supplied to disprove the original sentiment that Slayer sucks based on the premise that it is bad experience (which is subjective anyway). Compfreak847 has also posted that this was intended as a reverse arugment. Meaning that he said it was bad in order for others to prove it was better. It has been shown to be an efficient means of raising combat whilst gaining profit many times. Zarfot's guide also shows without a doubt (one would think) that Slayer is anything but bad. That is how I got to the conclusion that thread only really exists in order satiate compfreak847's want of a debate.

 

 

 

P.S The reason I haven't posted much or been on Runescape is because I am going to Uni now. What little time I do have free I prefer to do other things.

 

P.P.S. I have debated with you for that amny pages now, the least you could do is learn to spell my name correctly. It isn't that difficult.

[Mischlings]

For the sake of combat xp and drops, slayer is probably not worth it.

 

 

 

I don't really understand the whole push towards being at maximum efficiency with everything recently -- it seems like since I came back from my 9 month hiatus in March, it's MUCH more prevalent than it was before. Maybe someone can explain to me why this has suddenly come up.

 

 

 

I try to be efficient with things, but I'd go insane if I was to do what people always seem to suggest as being the most efficient.

 

 

 

As for whether or not this is a debate, it was. There was debate, exchanging facts and numbers back and forth, arguing as to what was best. That is a debate.

[compfreak847]

 

This part is incredibly flawed in such a way that you are grouping all the people together. By saying "upset", you would be meaing to disprove the current rates given (or something to that effect)? Here in lies the problem, that is impossible. You propose someone should do "hundreds or thousands of hours" of testing in order to simultaneously disprove you, me, Qeltar and Zarfot. Please tell me i'm not the only one that can see the flaw here. If he were to disprove your rates, that more or less means it proves mine. The flaw is you have grouped together under the false pretence that they are the same. It comes down to I have shown my side which shows Slayer as good. Zarfot and Qeltar aren't arguing their point, but Zarfot's guide shows that Slayer is good. Then there is you.

 

 

 

 

Is this not a matter of interpretation? You require facts and yet you supply this phrase which is purely subjective in nature. How do you define 'best'? Is what is best for you best for someone else also? There are really only 3 key elements for determining what is best however, how much of each element taken into account goes according to the person. The elements are simply fun, profit and experience (simple enough). As such, there can never be a 'delusion' that Slayer is best. It may be best for some and not others (I fall into Slayer is best for me category).

 

 

Your completely misinterpreting my posts. To clarify, I'll reword it this way: Slayer is not the best combat XP, and armored zombies is more efficient. That's all I'm saying, and that's all the meaning behind this 65 page thread. XP is not subjective, and while I did bring this up simply to debate (as well as try to prove slayer XP better via reverse arguments), the current accepted rates favor zombies over slayer.

 

 

 

 

P.S The reason I haven't posted much or been on Runescape is because I am going to Uni now. What little time I do have free I prefer to do other things.

 

:|

 

It's so much easier arguing with people who have been with this thread from the beginning. Any other debates simply start at my first post, and I have to try and condense 40 pages or so of arguments between the two of us into a few paragraphs to bring them up to speed. People hate reading :wall:

 

 

 

 

P.P.S. I have debated with you for that amny pages now, the least you could do is learn to spell my name correctly. It isn't that difficult.

 

I'm not good with names, I'll work on it :-#

 

 

 

 

As for whether or not this is a debate, it was. There was debate, exchanging facts and numbers back and forth, arguing as to what was best. That is a debate.

 

That's not what this thread is about. Just because someone disagrees with the OPs opinion doesn't mean it should instantly be moved to debate club, then moved back when the debate is settled #-o

[Mischlings]

As for whether or not this is a debate, it was. There was debate, exchanging facts and numbers back and forth, arguing as to what was best. That is a debate.

 

That's not what this thread is about. Just because someone disagrees with the OPs opinion doesn't mean it should instantly be moved to debate club, then moved back when the debate is settled #-o

 

 

 

I am not claiming that it should be moved; all I was saying is that it was a debate. I wasn't saying that it should be moved, just that there was debating. Then you say this:

 

 

 

XP is not subjective, and while I did bring this up simply to debate (as well as try to prove slayer XP better via reverse arguments), the current accepted rates favor zombies over slayer.

 

 

 

So you said before that you didn't create it for debate, then you say that you brought it up just to debate. All you've accomplished here is to confuse the hell out of me.

[compfreak847]

 

I am not claiming that it should be moved; all I was saying is that it was a debate. I wasn't saying that it should be moved, just that there was debating. Then you say this:

 

 

We were discussing if it should be moved to debate club, and you jumped in saying this thread was a debate - it was not, the thread was a rant that spawned a debate in some of the replies that had already ended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you said before that you didn't create it for debate, then you say that you brought it up just to debate. All you've accomplished here is to confuse the hell out of me.

 

Then read more carefully. I created the thread to counteract slayer, knowing some people would disagree with my XP rates and that I might be called upon to back them up. This I accomplished. Sorry, but the title of this forum isn't "only post if you agree with the OP", as so many have tried to tell me it is #-o

[pureprayer]

When I said that, I meant that he has never lost the main argument. No one has ever proved slayer was the best xp/money total, although he has been proven wrong on multiple accounts. Honestly, I'm so attentive when I solely do TIF that I post everywhere.

[Mischlings]

 

I am not claiming that it should be moved; all I was saying is that it was a debate. I wasn't saying that it should be moved, just that there was debating. Then you say this:

 

 

We were discussing if it should be moved to debate club, and you jumped in saying this thread was a debate - it was not, the thread was a rant that spawned a debate in some of the replies that had already ended.

 

 

 

You seemed adamant that this wasn't a debate, and there was debating in this thread. I was just pointing out that it was a debate, even though that much debating might not qualify it for the Debate Club. I'm a stickler for semantics.

 

 

 

I apologize for the distraction.

[compfreak847]

 

 

 

You seemed adamant that this wasn't a debate, and there was debating in this thread. I was just pointing out that it was a debate, even though that much debating might not qualify it for the Debate Club. I'm a stickler for semantics.

 

 

And i am too, see previous threads where I spent 17 pages arguing over the definition of a single word. Prepare for a long, drawn-out discussion of the exact parallels and definitions of every word used in any of my or your posts. I like to set things straight, so I'll restate my point and you can tell me exactly what your arguing against so I know where to attack first. Here it is again: This thread should not be moved into debate club, as the original post contained no debate, and indeed, the only 'debate' was clarifying what the experience rates were based on testing. Now that that is settled, there is really no justification for calling this anything other then a rant.

 

 

 

 

I apologize for the distraction.

 

Don't apologize, it's been a while since I've had a good difference of personal opinion on this thread. I was getting out of practice \

[Aneron]

Your post has some pretty bad points. Being a 99 slayer myself, I hope you'll credit what I have to say.

 

 

 

Firstly, you claim that slayer gives 50k xp/hour (in a melee skill I presume). I've gotten over 90k/hour on tasks where I can use my steel titan (counting the ranged xp as melee xp, since ranged xp is more valuable in my opinion anyways. If you disagree, I would like to point out that the iron titan can give very close to the same xp rate, having effectively the same max hit, only a slightly slower rate of attack). Of course not all tasks are that fast. Mithril dragons, one of the slowest, yield 30k xp/hour though so I don't think your claim of 50k/hour is realistic.

 

 

 

Your example of running out of slayer points to skip the bad tasks is a classic one of mismanagement of your points. I blocked the tasks iron dragons, steel dragons, hellhounds, and greater demons. I never once skipped a task, and had 8700 slayer points promptly exchanged for 62k magic darts at the end of the road. This brings me to the other claim, that slayer is bad money. Although it's by no means extraordinary, it certainly isn't bad. I averaged 50k/hour from slayer points alone. I also got 10 whips and 10 dark bows along the way to 99 (which is miserably bad luck imo lol), as well as 60-ish dragon boots. 91-99 slayer yielded 10M in alchable rune items, so presumably I got 7-8M from the previous stint. Assuming 520 total hours for 99 slayer, that would be 165k/hour on average, plus all the xp gained. Going with Zarfot's average of 80k melee xp/hour and yours of 110k/hour, I lost 133 hours maxing melees to make 85M, a favorable exchange if you value time at 645k/hour or less, which is approximately correct for me as my best sustainable income is astral runes, which are slightly lower. That isn't to mention the fact that I got 99 slayer along the way too, of course. If you throw the slayer xp in being as valuable as melee xp, the skill becomes 105k/hour as opposed to zombie monkeys' 110k/hour, not to mention the profit from slayer. Of course, slayer actually being 1/4 the speed of melees, it is in my opinion 4x as valuable, which would make training slayer considerably better for training slayer than zombie monkies. Obviously lol.

 

 

 

In regard to using slayer to train ranged, all I have to say is that I went from 80 ranged to 16M ranged in my goal of 99 slayer. 1-2M xp perhaps came from the god wars dungeon, 500k of it was from chinning, and the rest was from my steel titan or cannoning. Not bad considering that it took effectively no time. :P It cost money of course, but that was my decision.

 

 

 

I maintain that after AFKing, it is the most efficient way to train.

 

 

 

Edit: One more thing, I forgot entirely about summoning. Aside from being ownage, it can also be trained very effectively by slayer. From 91-99 slayer (7m exp), I received charms for 96-16m summoning (8m exp). Zombie monkeys don't give charms. So yeah.

[compfreak847]

 

Firstly, you claim that slayer gives 50k xp/hour (in a melee skill I presume). I've gotten over 90k/hour on tasks where I can use my steel titan (counting the ranged xp as melee xp, since ranged xp is more valuable in my opinion anyways. If you disagree, I would like to point out that the iron titan can give very close to the same xp rate, having effectively the same max hit, only a slightly slower rate of attack). Of course not all tasks are that fast. Mithril dragons, one of the slowest, yield 30k xp/hour though so I don't think your claim of 50k/hour is realistic.

 

 

 

Your example of running out of slayer points to skip the bad tasks is a classic one of mismanagement of your points. I blocked the tasks iron dragons, steel dragons, hellhounds, and greater demons. I never once skipped a task, and had 8700 slayer points promptly exchanged for 62k magic darts at the end of the road. This brings me to the other claim, that slayer is bad money. Although it's by no means extraordinary, it certainly isn't bad. I averaged 50k/hour from slayer points alone. I also got 10 whips and 10 dark bows along the way to 99 (which is miserably bad luck imo lol), as well as 60-ish dragon boots. 91-99 slayer yielded 10M in alchable rune items, so presumably I got 7-8M from the previous stint. Assuming 520 total hours for 99 slayer, that would be 165k/hour on average, plus all the xp gained. Going with Zarfot's average of 80k melee xp/hour and yours of 110k/hour, I lost 133 hours maxing melees to make 85M, a favorable exchange if you value time at 645k/hour or less, which is approximately correct for me as my best sustainable income is astral runes, which are slightly lower. That isn't to mention the fact that I got 99 slayer along the way too, of course. If you throw the slayer xp in being as valuable as melee xp, the skill becomes 105k/hour as opposed to zombie monkeys' 110k/hour, not to mention the profit from slayer. Of course, slayer actually being 1/4 the speed of melees, it is in my opinion 4x as valuable, which would make training slayer considerably better for training slayer than zombie monkies. Obviously lol.

 

Already adressed in the replies. Casual slaying yields slower XP, but for the purpose of debate, 75k\h (the average for constant attention) was used and also proven inferior.

 

 

 

 

In regard to using slayer to train ranged, all I have to say is that I went from 80 ranged to 16M ranged in my goal of 99 slayer. 1-2M xp perhaps came from the god wars dungeon, 500k of it was from chinning, and the rest was from my steel titan or cannoning. Not bad considering that it took effectively no time. :P It cost money of course, but that was my decision.

 

But you could have obtained 160k XP\h elsewhere, and you were wasting your time.

 

 

 

 

Edit: One more thing, I forgot entirely about summoning. Aside from being ownage, it can also be trained very effectively by slayer. From 91-99 slayer (7m exp), I received charms for 96-16m summoning (8m exp). Zombie monkeys don't give charms. So yeah.

 

Read the replies. Armored zombies give a considerable amount of charms, and summoning is accounted for in XP rates.

 

 

 

There's over 2,000 pages dealing with all of the points you brought up. Please read the replies to this thread before posting next time.

[Aneron]

Already adressed in the replies. Casual slaying yields slower XP, but for the purpose of debate, 75k\h (the average for constant attention) was used and also proven inferior.

 

 

 

That's interesting, because I just wrote out math proving that it is superior, while you have provided none that I can see.

 

 

 

But you could have obtained 160k XP\h elsewhere, and you were wasting your time.

 

 

 

Not really, considering that I just stated that it took no time whatsoever to gain the xp, since I gained it while I was meleeing. All the money was provided by slayer.

 

 

 

Read the replies. Armored zombies give a considerable amount of charms, and summoning is accounted for in XP rates.

 

 

 

There's over 2,000 pages dealing with all of the points you brought up. Please read the replies to this thread before posting next time.

 

 

 

I read the first post, and saw no mention of charms anywhere. I read the last page and saw nothing but you posting in various forms "I am right and you are wrong" with no proof to back up your points. Forgive me for not reading the other 63 pages.

[compfreak847]

That's interesting, because I just wrote out math proving that it is superior, while you have provided none that I can see.

 

 

 

Not really, considering that I just stated that it took no time whatsoever to gain the xp, since I gained it while I was meleeing. All the money was provided by slayer.

 

Take a look at the replies, from pages (text) 50-1,800

 

 

 

 

I read the first post, and saw no mention of charms anywhere. I read the last page and saw nothing but you posting in various forms "I am right and you are wrong" with no proof to back up your points. Forgive me for not reading the other 63 pages.

 

Gee, that's exciting. Now go back and actually read my thread before responding, just like it says in the first post that you so conveniently read. See you in a few weeks.

[Aneron]

I don't know how your number system works, but to my eyes this thread definitely has 65 pages, not 800 or over 2000.

 

 

 

However, that is still more than I think it is reasonable to expect anyone who wishes to argue with you to trawl. Your first post says to read the whole post. Not the entire damn thread, which obviously no one without an ungodly amount of time will do. If you care to disprove my points, do so. If you can't, which seems to be the case so far, don't. But don't give me BS that because at some point in this jungle of posts you have spoken about the topics I am discussing that you are absolved from ever defending them again, especially when you are wrong in regard to them.

 

 

 

If you really are too rude to lower yourself to the level of responding to what I think is a reasonably well structured argument against your own, fine, but don't make it look like it's my fault for not spending, in your own words, a few weeks reading a topic that from what I have seen so far has absolutely no postive qualities to redeem the many thoroughly poorly reasoned statements on your part.

[compfreak847]

 

I don't know how your number system works, but to my eyes this thread definitely has 65 pages, not 800 or over 2000.

 

Pages of text, not forum pages. Many of the posts are far, far longer then a page - several of mine exceeded 20 pages when quotes are included.

 

 

 

If you care to disprove my points, do so. If you can't, which seems to be the case so far, don't. But don't give me BS that because at some point in this jungle of posts you have spoken about the topics I am discussing that you are absolved from ever defending them again, especially when you are wrong in regard to them.

 

 

 

If you really are too rude to lower yourself to the level of responding to what I think is a reasonably well structured argument against your own, fine, but don't make it look like it's my fault for not spending, in your own words, a few weeks reading a topic that from what I have seen so far has absolutely no postive qualities to redeem the many thoroughly poorly reasoned statements on your part.

 

 

I took the time and effort to stick with this thread over thousands of pages, hundreds of posts, and months of time. Why should I have to restate my entire argument just because your too lazy to read it? You obviously haven't, as your "argument" has been completely debunked. I'll even provide a link for you to read my posts, you won't get as much in-depth detail from Ydraisel's responses, but you'll at least get an overview: http://forum.tip.it/search.php?keywords=Re%3A+Slayer+Sucks&terms=all&author=compfreak847&fid=66&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=a&st=0&ch=-1&t=0&submit=Search

 

 

 

Get back to me when you've read it, and I mean ALL of it. If you can't take the time to read my argument, then don't try to respond against it by repeating what was argued months ago :roll:

[Aneron]

I hate to come into any conversation uninformed, but browsing through it seems that ydraisil has indeed stated many of the same things I did, and your response was typically to say that he was wrong. He would ask for explanations, and you would decline. How surprising.

 

 

 

I see no benefit in reading 63 pages of that, nor in continuing to give life to a thread by an author whose stance is that he is right and you are wrong, if you disagree go away. The only researched part of this thread that I can see is the first post, the majority of which is wrong. Having stated thus in my first response, you politely told me that my elaborated upon post was wrong, and told me to go away (at the same time telling me that I had wasted time doing something that I explained had taken no time to do, good job reading) with absolutely no counter-argument of your own, which seems to be the pattern of this thread. Obviously there is no convincing you that slayer is superior, even though you can't seem to get together the rather simple facts that would be necessary to prove my post wrong. Have a nice day.

[compfreak847]

I hate to come into any conversation uninformed, but browsing through it seems that ydraisil has indeed stated many of the same things I did, and your response was typically to say that he was wrong. He would ask for explanations, and you would decline. How surprising.

 

 

 

I see no benefit in reading 63 pages of that, nor in continuing to give life to a thread by an author whose stance is that he is right and you are wrong, if you disagree go away. The only researched part of this thread that I can see is the first post, the majority of which is wrong. Having stated thus in my first response, you politely told me that my elaborated upon post was wrong, and told me to go away (at the same time telling me that I had wasted time doing something that I explained had taken no time to do, good job reading) with absolutely no counter-argument of your own, which seems to be the pattern of this thread. Obviously there is no convincing you that slayer is superior, even though you can't seem to get together the rather simple facts that would be necessary to prove my post wrong. Have a nice day.

 

As even ydraisel has stated, we have reached an agreement on XP rates around page 50 through extensive testing. You have obviously not even scratched the surface of the debate, as all testing was recorded in detail and carefully documented.

 

 

 

Look, if your too lazy to read my argument before responding, I see no reason why I should read yours. Your more then welcome to argue on this thread, but please don't post again until you read more carefully.

[compfreak847]

I hate to come into any conversation uninformed, but browsing through it seems that ydraisil has indeed stated many of the same things I did, and your response was typically to say that he was wrong. He would ask for explanations, and you would decline. How surprising.

 

 

 

I see no benefit in reading 63 pages of that, nor in continuing to give life to a thread by an author whose stance is that he is right and you are wrong, if you disagree go away. The only researched part of this thread that I can see is the first post, the majority of which is wrong. Having stated thus in my first response, you politely told me that my elaborated upon post was wrong, and told me to go away (at the same time telling me that I had wasted time doing something that I explained had taken no time to do, good job reading) with absolutely no counter-argument of your own, which seems to be the pattern of this thread. Obviously there is no convincing you that slayer is superior, even though you can't seem to get together the rather simple facts that would be necessary to prove my post wrong. Have a nice day.

 

As even ydraisel has stated, we have reached an agreement on XP rates around page 50 through extensive testing. You have obviously not even scratched the surface of the debate, as all testing was recorded in detail and carefully documented.

 

 

 

Look, if your too lazy to read my argument before responding, I see no reason why I should read yours. Your more then welcome to argue on this thread, but please don't post again until you read more carefully.

[ydrasil]

Your completely misinterpreting my posts. To clarify, I'll reword it this way: Slayer is not the best combat XP, and armored zombies is more efficient. That's all I'm saying, and that's all the meaning behind this 65 page thread. XP is not subjective, and while I did bring this up simply to debate (as well as try to prove slayer XP better via reverse arguments), the current accepted rates favor zombies over slayer.

 

I didn't misinterpret. "Best" is a subjective term. You saying that Slayer is not the best experience may be the case for you, but not for everyone. If it is simply a matter of efficiency comparing only profit per hour and experience per hour, then I don't recall Armoured Zombies being shown to be more efficient anywhere. More importantly you mention the rates. I asked a question and received no answer. What are the rates for Slayer you are using for comparison? (In bold so you don't miss it). As I mentioned before, you haven't actually supplied any rates for the overall rate of Slayer.

 

 

 

When I said that, I meant that he has never lost the main argument. No one has ever proved slayer was the best xp/money total, although he has been proven wrong on multiple accounts. Honestly, I'm so attentive when I solely do TIF that I post everywhere.

 

The main argument has changed a few times throughout the thread. It was originally about Zombie Monkies, which was proven worse. It only continued due to the release of Armoured Zombies, which in my opinion I have proven worse also. I get approximately 194,793 overall experience per hour whilst doing Slayer (164,023 of which is purely combat experience). I also get approximately 106,656gp profit per hour (although this is still lower than expected, needs more testing). These rates are not even the maximum. I am not at maximum stats, I don't use piety on all tasks, I am not 99 Summoning and do not have access to the best fighting familiars, I even cancel a couple tasks which if done would raise my experience rate as it far exceeds the average. The rate it is being compared to for Armoured Zombies is the max, that rate cannot get any better.

 

 

 

As even ydraisel has stated, we have reached an agreement on XP rates around page 50 through extensive testing. You have obviously not even scratched the surface of the debate, as all testing was recorded in detail and carefully documented.

 

Clearly we have not reached an agreement after all. If we had you would already realise Armoured Zombies is inferior to Slayer. I know the rates I have been using, and have stated them many times. You have not stated what your personal rates are nor even mentioned the rate you are using as comparison.

 

 

 

I've mentioned before, you really should update the first post. I'm not talking adding in every detail throughout the thread. Simply slight changes to allow others to be able to provide valuable input. A couple examples of some easy to see changes is to remove all the information about Zombie Monkies and replace it with Armoured Zombies. Update the experience rates you have been using for Slayer as comparison. You could possibly clarify the argument you are trying to make also. These small but important changes might take 5-10 minutes (more depending on how much information you wish to add), but allows for more people to get up to speed and allow the debate to continue.

 

 

 

P.S You got my name wrong again #-o :lol:

[compfreak847]

 

I didn't misinterpret. "Best" is a subjective term. You saying that Slayer is not the best experience may be the case for you, but not for everyone. If it is simply a matter of efficiency comparing only profit per hour and experience per hour, then I don't recall Armoured Zombies being shown to be more efficient anywhere. More importantly you mention the rates. I asked a question and received no answer. What are the rates for Slayer you are using for comparison? (In bold so you don't miss it). As I mentioned before, you haven't actually supplied any rates for the overall rate of Slayer.

 

Rates are being used from http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=765267&hilit=re%3A+slayer+sucks&start=800 and previously. I quite you:

 

 

 

Just to back-up what compfreak847 said, if all experience is counted in, yes you do get more experience per hour than the Zombies. You also get less profit (exact amount difference is too hard to determine). However, only counting Combat experience, you do get less with Slayer when compared to Zombies (I think it was about 19k less to combat with Slayer). However, I wouldn't say that it sucks. It is a far better option than nearly every other way in the game as it has a higher combat experience rate and reasonable profit. The only method that has any counter to this is the Armoured Zombies. It is my opinion that if you count the Zombies as the best way, then Slayer is the second best way.

 

 

 

Look, if you want to start changing the rates we used to come to that conclusion, you can't just throw in numbers and use them. If you want to, I'll gladly start this debate over and begin calculating and testing numbers from scratch, but unless there's something drastically different between when we agreed earlier on and now, I don't really see anything productive coming out of it.

 

 

 

 

I've mentioned before, you really should update the first post. I'm not talking adding in every detail throughout the thread. Simply slight changes to allow others to be able to provide valuable input. A couple examples of some easy to see changes is to remove all the information about Zombie Monkies and replace it with Armoured Zombies. Update the experience rates you have been using for Slayer as comparison. You could possibly clarify the argument you are trying to make also. These small but important changes might take 5-10 minutes (more depending on how much information you wish to add), but allows for more people to get up to speed and allow the debate to continue.

 

That's possible, but without knowing all the details people tend to barge in and try and renew the obvious points of the debate that have already been covered. At least this way when people come in blathering about zombie monkies I know they haven't bothered to read the replies, and it's easier to weed out. You do have a point, though - 65 pages is too much for a casual debate. I just don't think a 'casual debate' is going to do anything, however - we've debate these numbers far more in depth then I can ever hope to cover in a single post, and arguing with them is going to take a deep understanding of all the underlying posts. So if they want to argue about "fun" or another of my points (I still firmly believe in every part of my original post), they don't have to wade through hundreds of pages of numbers, but if they DO plan to argue the numbers, they better read carefully before posting.

 

 

 

P.S You got my name wrong again #-o :lol:

 

Gah, I thought I had it that time. Sorry about that, it's my dislexia kicking in - I swap the "s" and "i" to get ydraisl, and sometimes throw in an "e" simply because it looks bad. Guess I've gotta copy and paste it from above your avatar :lol: :wall: