Slayer Sucks

[compfreak847]

Agreed, but Armored Zombies still wins :P

 

 

 

The whole point of a Skill, is to work your way through and get the 99, thats what Runescape is all about really, because if there were no skills but monsters, Runescape would be boring..

 

Agreed. That's why I love slayer :P

[Clay_More12]

Agreed. That's why I love slayer :P

 

 

 

 

Slayer Sucks

[compfreak847]

 

Pages 7 to 36. That's specific? Explains a lot.

 

Good to know. It might come as a surprise to you, but 1,800 pages takes a bit of forum space to display =D>

 

 

 

 

Not many people would be dedicated enough to read through 580 posts just so they can see some facts.

 

Then they shouldn't be trying to argue for or against said facts.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand grinding, it is boring, benefits you as a person in no way what so ever (except for maybe learning patience). All that for a game.... get a life ppl.

 

Drop the "get a life", people are free to enjoy whatever they want. I do agree with you though, it's funner to train with variety then grind at one spot :P

 

 

 

 

Nice double post BTW.

 

What? I responded to two separate posts on separate posts of my own to separate facts, it's within the rules so I'm assuming your trying to "insult" me with it as thusfar you haven't been able to come up with a "logic" argument.

[Lord_Firer]

 

Ok, my what? I have not said any stats.... and I never said you were a liar, just said that saying "I am the fastest...." or whatever does not mean that I am going to believe you. Calm down.

 

But it pits my view of my abilities against yours, and as it's me we're talking about, it clearly defines my position and overrides your secondhand viewpoint.

 

 

 

Uh? My abilities?

 

 

 

 

Grabbing a monster does not count as a kill, it is the killing I am talking about. Better stats -> faster kill -> less time till you can attack another one.

 

Ever tried getting bandos KC? I'd advise trying it before you begin a debate about it. Since you obviously don't seem to know, we're talking about monsters with level 1 defence and 3-15 HP that are almost always 1 hit with 3-4 seconds spent waiting for a spawn between each kill.

 

 

 

Yes, I have done bandos, thus I have gotten a bandos kill count off the goblins. Higher the level, higher the chance to hit/one hit kill them. Even at 84 attack I sometimes miss. A clear assumption on your behalf.

 

 

 

EDIT: the get a life thing is a serious issue, not an insult. It's a health risk staying in doors all day grinding. Anyway....

 

 

 

There were two exact same posts before, just pointing it out..... stop jumping to conclusions.

[compfreak847]

Uh? My abilities?

 

Your argument that I'm a laid-back, slow slayer as the reason for my numbers being different.

 

 

 

Yes, I have done bandos, thus I have gotten a bandos kill count off the goblins. Higher the level, higher the chance to hit/one hit kill them. Even at 84 attack I sometimes miss. A clear assumption on your behalf.

 

And that has precisely what to do with who gets the goblin when two people are standing there waiting for a spawn?

[Mischlings]

 

Pages 7 to 36. That's specific? Explains a lot.

 

Good to know. It might come as a surprise to you, but 1,800 pages takes a bit of forum space to display =D>

 

 

 

And it is absolutely impossible to condense it to show relevant portions? Come on, now you're just being stubborn for the hell of it. Why not post relevant portions here? When we're talking about, say, cannoning spectres, post the numbers. Or do you enjoy making it difficult for other people to understand you?

[compfreak847]

 

And it is absolutely impossible to condense it to show relevant portions? Come on, now you're just being stubborn for the hell of it. Why not post relevant portions here? When we're talking about, say, cannoning spectres, post the numbers. Or do you enjoy making it difficult for other people to understand you?

 

Because it's ALL tied together. Behind each number for a rate is a dozen pages of calculations show that that is indeed the best method. Any time I post something without the necessary tome of footmarks it ends up in a 3 page flame war over a subject settled months ago. Read the entire thread or don't respond.

[Lord_Firer]

Uh? My abilities?

 

Your argument that I'm a laid-back, slow slayer as the reason for my numbers being different.

 

 

 

Lol, never said that. That was someone else...

 

 

 

Yes, I have done bandos, thus I have gotten a bandos kill count off the goblins. Higher the level, higher the chance to hit/one hit kill them. Even at 84 attack I sometimes miss. A clear assumption on your behalf.

 

And that has precisely what to do with who gets the goblin when two people are standing there waiting for a spawn?

 

 

 

Ok, gonna explain this real slow.

 

 

 

Lets say it is you verse me to get 40 kill count, right?

 

 

 

We both get a goblin first, as there are a few spawned around.

 

I miss my first hit, you one hit your goblin.

 

 

 

So far:

 

Lord Firer - 0

 

DeviledEgg24 - 1

 

 

 

I then kill one, but by that time your on your second.

 

 

 

Get the drift?

 

 

 

My stats are lower, so I have a greater chance of missing, as your are higher, your accuracy is much better than mine.

 

 

 

I never discounted the fact that you may click faster than your opponent, but you have to include everything, not just you clicking speed.

[compfreak847]

 

Lol, never said that. That was someone else...

 

Sorry, get you and Miner mixed up. One of the reasons I separate posts. Twice in 2 days, I need to work on that :?

 

 

 

Ok, gonna explain this real slow.

 

 

 

Lets say it is you verse me to get 40 kill count, right?

 

 

 

We both get a goblin first, as there are a few spawned around.

 

I miss my first hit, you one hit your goblin.

 

 

 

So far:

 

Lord Firer - 0

 

DeviledEgg24 - 1

 

 

 

I then kill one, but by that time your on your second.

 

 

 

Get the drift?

 

 

 

My stats are lower, so I have a greater chance of missing, as your are higher, your accuracy is much better than mine.

 

But I'm not talking about that. I was specifically referring to reaction time, so it should have been clear: I'm talking about when we're both standing in one spot, one spawns, and we both click to attack.

[Mischlings]

Because it's ALL tied together. Behind each number for a rate is a dozen pages of calculations show that that is indeed the best method. Any time I post something without the necessary tome of footmarks it ends up in a 3 page flame war over a subject settled months ago. Read the entire thread or don't respond.

 

 

 

You missed the point entirely. Show me the calculations for why you've come to the conclusion that cannoning aberrant spectres is less efficient than meleeing them without the cannon for support. You mean that it's impossible to show that in less than, in your words, a dozen pages?

[compfreak847]

 

You missed the point entirely. Show me the calculations for why you've come to the conclusion that cannoning aberrant spectres is less efficient than meleeing them without the cannon for support. You mean that it's impossible to show that in less than, in your words, a dozen pages?

 

Yep. It's a truly massive amount of calculations and numbers, each with details of how they were obtained and the arguments required to end up with them.

[Lord_Firer]

 

Lol, never said that. That was someone else...

 

Sorry, get you and Miner mixed up. One of the reasons I separate posts. Twice in 2 days, I need to work on that :?

 

 

 

Ok, gonna explain this real slow.

 

 

 

Lets say it is you verse me to get 40 kill count, right?

 

 

 

We both get a goblin first, as there are a few spawned around.

 

I miss my first hit, you one hit your goblin.

 

 

 

So far:

 

Lord Firer - 0

 

DeviledEgg24 - 1

 

 

 

I then kill one, but by that time your on your second.

 

 

 

Get the drift?

 

 

 

My stats are lower, so I have a greater chance of missing, as your are higher, your accuracy is much better than mine.

 

But I'm not talking about that. I was specifically referring to reaction time, so it should have been clear: I'm talking about when we're both standing in one spot, one spawns, and we both click to attack.

 

 

 

All my issues are settled :lol:, dw about that mistake, I kind made one too :P

[zalitz_miner]

I see you are ignoring the better methods argument and still saying everyone is talking about how fast you can click when you do an abyss/Zmi run.

 

 

 

All numbers and methods are detailed with efficiency calculations earlier in this thread. Argue with facts instead of throwing generic insults :roll:

 

 

 

That's how we know you are not efficient. You are the one constantly throwing insults and using heavy patronizing sarcasm in nearly every response post. Use your childish smileys all you want. You DID ignore the better methods argument and are still talking about how good your zmi/abyss runs are. In fact you seemed to ignore a full page of posts from when you were offline.

[compfreak847]

 

That's how we know you are not efficient. You are the one constantly throwing insults and using heavy patronizing sarcasm in nearly every response post. Use your childish smileys all you want. You DID ignore the better methods argument and are still talking about how good your zmi/abyss runs are. In fact you seemed to ignore a full page of posts from when you were offline.

 

Still waiting for your numbers to differ with my cannon rates. Until then, your simply slinging opinions. Yes, I use sarcasm. It's part of my debating style, either deal with it, ignore it, or add me to your ignore list.

 

 

 

 

All my issues are settled :lol:, dw about that mistake, I kind made one too :P

 

Ok, issues settled :P

[Mischlings]

 

You missed the point entirely. Show me the calculations for why you've come to the conclusion that cannoning aberrant spectres is less efficient than meleeing them without the cannon for support. You mean that it's impossible to show that in less than, in your words, a dozen pages?

 

Yep. It's a truly massive amount of calculations and numbers, each with details of how they were obtained and the arguments required to end up with them.

 

 

 

How remarkably convenient for you.

[zalitz_miner]

Lol, never said that. That was someone else...

 

 

 

Sorry, get you and Miner mixed up. One of the reasons I separate posts. Twice in 2 days, I need to work on that :?

 

 

 

I never specifically called you a laid-back slow inefficient slayer, that was someone else, but yes I do agree you are inefficient and thus slower.

[compfreak847]

 

I never specifically called you a laid-back slow inefficient slayer, that was someone else, but yes I do agree you are inefficient and thus slower.

 

See my above response to that on the previous page, detailed at viewtopic.php?f=66&t=765267&start=1400#p6601905

 

 

 

Then again, how would you know?

[zalitz_miner]

I see someone else you quoted and responded to, nothing I said. What is your point? I don't see how you use some other persons words(laid-back and relaxed) in a response to what I am saying. How did you confuse me with shadow? Maybe I'm just not getting what you are saying.

[compfreak847]

I see someone else you quoted and responded to, nothing I said. What is your point? I don't see how you use some other persons words(laid-back and relaxed) in a response to what I am saying. How did you confuse me with shadow? Maybe I'm just not getting what you are saying.

 

Your not. You said you thought I was slow and inefficient, I responded with a post detailing why I wasn't. What part of that is hard for you to understand?

[zalitz_miner]

I don't think you responded to the last of page 70 after you said you had to go soon. Or did I miss it?

[compfreak847]

I don't think you responded to the last of page 70 after you said you had to go soon. Or did I miss it?

 

No, I overlooked your post. In response:

 

We've tested and debated all of the major, well known methods for most tasks. The problem is that speed is not the only factor, as some believe it to be. Speed, cost, XP gained, and overall time spent all must be factored in, and sometimes there's overlooked variables that change what's most efficient to something completely unexpected.

[zalitz_miner]

Not only my post but ydrasil(sp?) post in response to you.

[compfreak847]

 

Not only my post but ydrasil(sp?) post in response to you.

 

:wall:

 

Wondered why he hadn't responded in the day and a half I was gone :lol:

 

 

 

 

You have made a mistake. The part that you quoted in your response, to which I then replied to your response was not what was quoted above. Maybe not explained the best, but go back and you should understand. He posted something, you quoted that and responded to it. I quoted your response here, and responded to that. You now bring up a different quote which was not what this was based on. The quote was this:

 

Fair enough, I thought you were talking about his second post, referring to Specters instead of Bloodvields.

 

 

 

 

The point isn't that they have to be considered. In testing all of these factors are essentially accounted for and they already boost/lower the rate. Meaning, you don't perform a test which results in X experience for Y time using a certain method (for example using a cannon, as that is what we are talking about), and then follow up that tested by changing those figures to account for those points you mentioned above. That should make sense to you. If it is already in the test, no need to do it twice.

 

 

 

From this, what I am trying to convey is that all of those factors were accounted for already in the testing of experience per hour for a given method. So out of all those points you mentioned, only one applies, and that was cost. Combine that with time to determine which is more efficient.

 

But they were examples of factors that must be considered in numbers, something we already did earlier.

 

 

 

 

It would take me 27.63 minutes to get the same amount of Slayer experience.

 

This leaves 32.37 minutes to make back what is lost due to a cannon (only the cost of cannonballs).

 

We don't know the amount of cannonballs, but we can work in reverse.

 

If it were to be more efficient to use a cannon at only 400k, then for the 27.63 minutes I can use a maximum of 215,814gp worth of cannonballs in that time. Based on the price of 188 each, that is 1,148. That extrapolates to 2,493 per hour. So if I were to use that many cannonballs an hour, it would make a cannon inefficent at 400k an hour.

 

Using the same process, at 500k an hour I would have to of used 3,116 cannonballs an hour.

 

Using the same process, at 600k an hour I would have to of used 3,740 cannonballs an hour.

 

 

 

I can assure you I do not use over 3k an hour so at 500k you can be assured it is more efficient at that point. I am unsure for the rate of 400k. However, since we can assume you make more than that, a cannon is more efficient for you to use. This all shows that you are using an inefficient method for Slayer.

 

Where is the value of experience based on range vs. melee XP? And I am discussing 400k as a non-luck method. We aren't suddenly changing the rate after 73 pages.

 

 

 

 

Well I think you have purposely mislead me. I was under the impression that you were talking about a 10% change from the average (which can go both ways to a total of 20% spread). Now you indicate here that you were talking about a 10% difference in the minimum and maximum. The average would have to be somewhere in the middle meaning it is only about a 5% deviation. That is not something I disagree with. A 10% deviation from the average was what I was disagreeing with. All of this was based on a misunderstanding it seems as I agree a 5% deviation is acceptable. So we don't have a similar argument as we already are, I won't go in to whether it was my fault or yours, as it doesn't really matter in the long run.

 

Fair enough, I'll consider it settled :)

 

 

 

 

That chart was compiled entirely from Qeltars beastiary. As I have said, I agree with the calculations but disagree with the numbers utilised. This is evidenced where I have lower stats and yet achieve a kill rate of approximately 97 higher per hour on Bloodvelds. I have never said the first 40 pages was about nothing either. Many other things were also discussed besides that intial assumption.

 

Those were before I introduced my own rates in comparison. I'm simply saying that we didn't use inaccurate rates for 40 pages and suddenly noticed it now.

 

 

 

 

I was making a joke geez. Of course I understood what was implied, I was joking about the irony that was there.

 

OK, sorry I didn't "get" it :)

 

 

 

 

You should just admit you were wrong so we can move on. There is no justification you can give to the contrary because there is no other way that it can be interpretted. The example was an example of what I do. That post came 2 (or 3?) after the intial post where I mentioned Zamorak Brews. In that post, it was specifically stated that when I personally do not take damage due to a Protection Prayer, I use Zamorak Brews. That exmaple is a perfect indication of that. Why would I post that, give an example that shows exactly what I am talking about and even saying that is what I do, and then somehow illogically imply that I do not use a protection prayer personally. Your reasoning has no logical or factual basis. You seem to be wanting this to keep going for no other reason than you not wanting to admit you are wrong.

 

I could make the same argument against you. Why are you so tenaciously trying to tell me what I meant? You never said you always used prayers for brews, and I was operating under the assumption that you weren't using a cannon at specters.

 

 

 

 

As above, what you say here is incorrect. The information provided can only be incorporated to represent one logical method. Saying that isn't true is a lie.

 

Then why is your information so inconsistent? First we agree that a canon is inefficient and not to be included, then include it in your equipment. I'm not sure which "version" to believe.

 

 

 

 

Used this rate earlier in my post. I also don't care about your "informal" rates. They aren't relevant in my opinion.

 

They aren't relevant to this debate, but they are relevant to my first post.

 

 

 

 

So that would mean every single way to train combat throughout the entire game "sucks" except one? That is what you have inferred. Not to mention in the context of everything that has been posted, "sucks" is too subjective.

 

Nope, just an attention grabber. Reasonably accurate title, but "8 page analysis detailing how slayer derives less raw efficiency from training then Armored Zombies" just doesn't have the same ring to it :lol:

 

Not quite what I meant with best but that is my fault I guess. I meant as in how would determine what is best? What do you define as a superior method?

 

Least overall time when all factors but time are equalized using rates from other 'best' methods separated for XP, profit, and other variables.

 

Using your definiton of efficient, then you are not "highly" efficient" when it comes to Slayer as you have inferred (as shown above).

 

When casual slaying, not testing. There's a difference.

[Deathmath]

*GETS HEAD BLOWN OFF FROM MASSIVE POSTING*

 

 

 

You both have points but you need to understand opportunity time. I have no idea about spectres, but I'll look through the post and find out. I read all the way to thirty. :-# Now my eyes are bleeding so I'll come back later, but...

 

 

 

I don't want to be a wannabe mod, but don't argue over established rates earlier in the post. Tomorrow i'll make it my job to compile the rates in a spreadsheet of doom, death, and destruction. And if you don't want to believe it then don't >.>

[Lord_Firer]

I need a good shave after all that talk and reading.