The total level, determines our rank in rs but what does it really show?

 

 

 

Someone can get 2000 total level with only 83 or 84 in every skill which isnt hard at all yet people think 2000 is a high total also someone could have 15 99s but only be 1800 total but wouldnt you agree the person with 15 99s has done more work in rs and probably deserves a better rank?

 

 

 

Do you think total level is overrated in rs?

No

It's the most tangible form of elitism we have in RS. Sure, there might be some cases when someone who worked harder on their skills has a lower total, but generally speaking those with higher totals worked on their character more. It's better than ranking by combat or total XP in my opinion. It also shows that you train diversely (if that's even a word :lol: ).

I disagree, because in some skills getting level 83 or 84 takes as long or longer than getting 99 in some other skill.

Its true that total experience is a much better judge of actual time invested. I agree that total level is slightly overrated. Slightly.

Rating anyone on any system in this game is over rated.

 

 

 

But as far as total levels go, sure.

 

 

 

The way that I "rate" people, if I have to, is mostly through their knowledge of tons of different RS topics, and then their knowledge about a few specific topics that they love the most.

Its true that total experience is a much better judge of actual time invested. I agree that total level is slightly overrated. Slightly.

 

i will have to call you on that one...200m xooking cp is much faster and easyer to get than even 50m atk str or even AGILTY EXPERIENCE........that y totalts shud be our ranking system sure a person with 15 99s has 195m xp where a person with 84s in all stats might only have 30-40m but what about those people with only 200m(as in only stat) fletching or cooking xp? shouldnt the person who has 195m xp from 15 99s (atk str def sllayer etc..) be rated above? and in the end total xp takes the prize when ur at the max total.....but during the journey there its more fair ranking by totals.......if 84s are so easy to get whn he gets there he will have even more xp

Its true that total experience is a much better judge of actual time invested. I agree that total level is slightly overrated. Slightly.

 

 

 

Not quite true. There is a huge difference between 10m cooking xp and 10m runecrafting xp. It's really a mix between total xp and total level.

 

 

 

Rating anyone on any system in this game is over rated.

 

 

Most true answer. [/thread]

No

 

Spamming is no.

 

 

 

---------------------

 

 

 

I guess similar to what alphakoldes said, why rate people at all? Any ONE system to rate people on, whether it be by total experience, total level, combat level, number of 99s, etc., will be flawed. Each person should be judged individually by assessing ALL of their levels and experience, and not just one aspect of their stats.

its more like total lvl is underrated i only get asked my total lvl like once a week and the question of 'highest skill' or something comes up multiple times a day.

 

 

 

people don't really rate on people's total lvl

its more like total lvl is underrated i only get asked my total lvl like once a week and the question of 'highest skill' or something comes up multiple times a day.

 

 

 

people don't really rate on people's total lvl

 

 

 

yes lots of ignorant people to....i mean hey see a lv 3 and instanly its a noob!....sry i know lv 3s that know more about the game (sept mabye slayer and gwd) thatn most people do ans they ahve like 500m xp...................

The best way would be to do a lot of math to determine how much exp is worth in each skill compared to the others. Cooking and fletching exp would be worth very very little, whereas agility and slayer exp would be worth many times more. Then you multiply a person's exp in each skill by these multipliers and add it all up, and you get their relative competence.

 

 

 

Since that would be insane and time consuming, we use total level.

to an extent they are overrated. back when i used to skill about 2 years and was lvl 90 this otehr level 90 said i was a noob coz he had 100 or so higher total but i had a good few m more exp and it was in skill like smithing mining runecraft his extra levels were in wood cutting fletchign cooking fire making, pretty easy as to say experience so in this case it would be but what about that rank 1 f2p skiller sygzy or something he has like 300-400m exp but i have a higher total, now whos total/exp is better?

to an extent they are overrated. back when i used to skill about 2 years and was lvl 90 this otehr level 90 said i was a noob coz he had 100 or so higher total but i had a good few m more exp and it was in skill like smithing mining runecraft his extra levels were in wood cutting fletchign cooking fire making, pretty easy as to say experience so in this case it would be but what about that rank 1 f2p skiller sygzy or something he has like 300-400m exp but i have a higher total, now whos total/exp is better?

 

 

 

eactly do you know how much im berrated as a 121 with 1 99? and its only fletching? ive benn called a noob from a lv 76 with 2 99s and 40mxp......

 

i chose to skill 1 99 76m xp? least i mnot hording 200m in 1 skill....bah w\e im over it

 

The best way would be to do a lot of math to determine how much exp is worth in each skill compared to the others. Cooking and fletching exp would be worth very very little, whereas agility and slayer exp would be worth many times more. Then you multiply a person's exp in each skill by these multipliers and add it all up, and you get their relative competence.

 

 

 

Since that would be insane and time consuming, we use total level.

 

 

 

yes, and no it truly detrmines the value of a skill.....fletvhig is overated now because msb are like not used and common from clues... but back when fleching was more widly needed and msb were the true ranger weapon it was a valued skill.....

 

 

 

and in classic cooking was prised uo near atk str minning or smithing...the fishermen were really the rich ones in them days.....but know? food is cheap economy is crap ans ppl dont get 99 cooking with fishing cause the want that coveted skill cape.....

 

 

 

rember at one time ever skill was valued highly....(smithing still hasnt really lost its covetedness tho....)

I think combat level is more overrated then total level.

 

 

 

When my brother asks me what my level is, I say I have over 2050 total level.

 

He then says "Yeah thats all fine, but whats your combat level?"

 

 

 

A 138 could have a really low total level, but still get more 'fame' then a 110 with 13 99's.

I think combat level is more overrated then total level.

 

 

 

When my brother asks me what my level is, I say I have over 2050 total level.

 

He then says "Yeah thats all fine, but whats your combat level?"

 

 

 

A 138 could have a really low total level, but still get more 'fame' then a 110 with 13 99's.

 

 

 

 

 

a 138 has 99 atk str def prayer and summ probably mage and range too as well as several hih if not other 99 skills just to get that high from doing quests or just playing rs......

 

 

 

bad example lol....... at least 5-8 99s right there as welll as other as i seriously doubt a 138 is goign to have less than 60 in most other stats

Rating anyone on any system in this game is over rated.

 

 

 

But as far as total levels go, sure.

 

 

 

The way that I "rate" people, if I have to, is mostly through their knowledge of tons of different RS topics, and then their knowledge about a few specific topics that they love the most.

 

 

 

And guess what, someone with high total lvl will have a good knowledge of lots of things on RS.

 

 

 

Compare that to all the lvl 90 newbs with their flethcing/cooking/firemaking cape...

 

 

 

If anything, 99s are overrated.

I vote to strike the use of "Overrated" from our general public lexicon. It's outrageously misunderstood and overused.

 

 

 

No one has any idea what my total level is unless they ask or choose to view that as the measuring stick for my RS progress from my sig/stat lookup.

 

 

 

On the contrary, players are registered in game by combat level. Many annoying players have addressed me by my combat level. "Hey, 111! Hey, 121!" In this regard, combat level is -clearly- more important as a status symbol.

 

 

 

Total level is misleading at times, sure. Since I set goals like "80+ in all skills", my total level is much higher than an average player with my time in game. Not that it matters; the only time I make a note of total is if I hit a milestone.

 

 

 

Just like all other metrics (combat, money, 99s, items) we use to define people in RS, the standard rules apply:

• [*:2ir93nw4]If someone is a jerk, then they'll be a jerk regardless. They'll overemphasize how important combat/total/money/items/99s may be to prop themselves up and feel better.[*:2ir93nw4]If someone is insecure, they'll attack what they struggle with. If they have no money, money is "overrated". If they can't fight, combat is "overrated". In the case of this thread, if their total is low, total is "overrated".[*:2ir93nw4]Nothing prevents people from developing their characters to make up for shortcomings. If you don't like being teased for a low level, stop saying "farming stinks lol" with level 2 farming. Go grab those runecrafting pouches. Train up construction to improve your ghetto house. OR, realize that if it's not important to you, it's not important. There is no shame in having fun.

This is the law of RuneScape (my opinion, go suck it.)

 

 

 

Total Experience > Total Level > Combat level

 

 

 

This law however, does not apply to pures. :thumbup:

Well, here's a formula for rating someone accurately (note that I think rating people purely for their skills is rather dumb, but that's just more accurete):

 

 

 

Total exp/total level= rate.

Well, here's a formula for rating someone accurately (note that I think rating people purely for their skills is rather dumb, but that's just more accurete):

 

 

 

Total exp/total level= rate.

 

 

 

With your formula, someone with 200M cooking experience and 200 skill total is rated higher than soemone with 2200 skill total and 200M total xp.

 

 

 

Again, total lvl isnt overrated at all, 99s are.

you cant really rate skill level against each other, unless you compare the xp/h as well, it is much faster to get 99 firemaking which is fast total xp then if you are getting 85 farming.

 

 

 

it isnt overrated

Well, here's a formula for rating someone accurately (note that I think rating people purely for their skills is rather dumb, but that's just more accurete):

 

 

 

Total exp/total level= rate.

 

 

 

With your formula, someone with 200M cooking experience and 200 skill total is rated higher than soemone with 2200 skill total and 200M total xp.

 

 

 

Again, total lvl isnt overrated at all, 99s are.

 

 

 

Then perhaps total exp X total level =

 

 

 

Although the outcome could get to seriously high numbers :o...

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe (total exp X total level)/1M =

 

 

 

?

I'd say total lvl is a show of the fact you can do a variety of skills rather than just one 'set' or so....

Nah, total levels aren't overrated, total xp is a little bit overrated, and 99's are, as bedman said, overrated.