Total levels overrated?

[Tijger2099]

I wouldn't state that it is overrated, it however doesn't really give a good indication of someone's rank. I wonder though if there actually IS any way that would do it. Total xp surely gives a more detailed indication, however I still feel someone with 30m cooking xp has doen less then someone with 10m slayer xp (I'm not against the cooking skill whatsoever, just pointing it out in this comparison).

 

 

 

Something like rank shouldn't actually exist, it causes too much controversy without ever getting to a point where it really means anything. What I find most important is that you get as much satisfaction from playing this game as you can, that you do what you feel like and don't feel forced at any given point to do something, that however can only be shown in a personal 'rank', and thus not be compared to others.

 

 

 

Just get rid of the ranking system to safe a lot of debate that leads nowhere!

[Randox]

Total exp is the most true messure of gamming effort skilling wise yes, but a better messurement of a charecters achivements and more immportantly abilities? Absolutly not.

 

 

 

Real life figured out a long time ago that being really good at one or a few thigns is really not so good. A great example are universities. You can be a strait A student, but if you have never done an extra ciricular activity or sport in your life, you may find you can get into (some) universities, but an awful lot of things (such as med school) will never allow you in. Universites wan't well rounded students who can excell resonably well in many areas. These people generaly do well in life because they are adaptable and have a greater and more diverse life experiance that can be applied everywhere.

 

 

 

Your well rounded RS players would generaly be the ones with at least 55 in all skills (maybe a few lower but still over 50), probably have a total level of 1500-1800, and likely have over 160 QP.

 

 

 

The really well rounded players are the ones with 80-85+ accross the board, probably have a total level of at least 2000, and likely have 250-max QP.

 

 

 

The players with a couple 99's and a whole bunch of skills still down around 50 have accived alot, and are obviously dedicated to the game and will easily have total exp in excess of someone with all 80's. But they are limated, they only specialise in certain things. While they have put alot into the game, I still feel its the ones who do everything that enjoy and excell in the game.

 

 

 

I guess to decide between dedication and diversity one could look at it this way. The total level is an indicator of game content unlocked. Someone with 80 in everyskill can do more things, because they will meet teh reqirements for alost every item and location, and will have unlocked significant portions of all the skills. Now some skills (like smithing) are high level heavy (an awful lot of thigns are unlocked at 99smith), but I still feel a total level indicates just how much of the game you can use and enjoy.

[G_P_Kid]

Should be ranked by total exp. Total level is most definately over rated & that's why I am 126cb with like 1600 total

[Atom Smash40]

i think its overrated. i have 82 mining. will be 83 in about a week and a half. and if i stopped training mining at 75 and spent that time doing other skills, in that time id have well over 1600 total im sure of it. total level shouldnt matter if your highest skill(s) are the ones that take the most time to level because if you didnt level them that high, you would have a higher total, instead of getting 1 lvl slowly

[r4ngewarlord]

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

 

I have 32M exp. My friend has 45M exp. Guess who's played 4 years, and the other not nearly 1,5 years. I can say, that i have more than double the playtime she has without doubt.

 

Well, obviously you didn't put your enite play time to effectivly train your skills, whether it was mini-games, quests, or just hanging with friends, it is fairly possible that your friend put more time into effectivly training her skills than you did...

 

Yes, it's obvious, but. My post was to prove that experience points are not a measure of playtime put in that account. instead i think jagex should show total playtime at your account info page.

 

 

 

that would depress me i really hope they dont.

 

ot i dont think totals overrated :thumbup:

[Outsanity]

No, I disagree. Total level is THE way to show the best developement of a character. A character with a high total level has invested time and money into those levels. Level 84 Runecrafting/Slayer/Mining/etc...those are not easy skills to level. As a person with 2,200+ total and almost all 85+ skills, I can tell you that Total Level is definitely NOT overrated, and in fact, should be given more praise than it currently is.

[Inuashakent]

But if you look into it, Cooking is 10 times easier than Runecrafting. So looking at Total xp is just as bad as looking at total level.

 

 

 

To accurately find out how 'good' a player is, you must calculate all his stats, find the xp and time required for each stat, and apply.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Much easier to find the total level if you ask me.

[AgentEarl]

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

 

 

 

thats gotta be the stupidest thing ive ever heard

 

there are much "harder" skills to rank up than others

 

i like total level though

[sithlord_man]

Should be ranked by total exp. Total level is most definately over rated & that's why I am 126cb with like 1600 total

 

 

 

People would get the easiest 99's to 200m Exp a probably be in first place with a 1600 total level (lower or higher) in that case.

 

 

 

If it were based on combat stats, then its overrated, other than that I think its just fine. :thumbup:

[Squisher_33]

N.........N..........OOOOO

 

NN.......N.........O.........O

 

N..N.....N.........O.........O

 

N....N...N.........O.........O

 

N......N.N.........O.........O

 

N.........N..........OOOOO

[Romy]

No, I disagree. Total level is THE way to show the best developement of a character. A character with a high total level has invested time and money into those levels. Level 84 Runecrafting/Slayer/Mining/etc...those are not easy skills to level. As a person with 2,200+ total and almost all 85+ skills, I can tell you that Total Level is definitely NOT overrated, and in fact, should be given more praise than it currently is.

 

I agree.

[pulli23]

But if you look into it, Cooking is 10 times easier than Runecrafting. So looking at Total xp is just as bad as looking at total level.

 

 

 

To accurately find out how 'good' a player is, you must calculate all his stats, find the xp and time required for each stat, and apply.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Much easier to find the total level if you ask me.

 

Hey and what about that person who spent his time collecting goldish CW set, and all barbarian outfit?

 

 

 

If you start comparing that should be into it too!

[mega_vegeta6]

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.

 

Good point, Jagex puts too much emphasis on combat levels within the game, where in fact it's pretty easy to get over 120 combat nowadays with all of the recent updates to the game.

 

 

 

I think it would be nice to have an option where you could select in your settings whether to display peoples total levels or combat levels.

 

 

It's not jagex who encourages high combat levels, it's the community.

 

 

 

And, no. it's not a good idea.

[FooK-A-Ji]

Its possible to have a significantly lower overall skill total, but have triple or quadruple the amount of xp points.

 

On the other hand a high overall demonstrates the ability and/or will to take up more than just a few skills and raise them, which is good in a game where variation is rewarded.

 

i.e a well rounded 85/85 cook/fisherman is likely to make more money than a level 99 cook with 60 fishing.

 

Which goes for smithing/mining, woodcutting/firemaking (with regards to spending money on logs you cannot cut yourself).

 

and more.

 

So I wouldn't say total levels is overrated, no. But those with low overall and higher exp will of course always seek recognition, as low overall is less noticed or paid attention to in general I think.

 

 

 

I myself have low overall, yet I always lie in the top 1-5 bracket of all the people who have the same overall level, and yeah it feels good :thumbsup:

[Quyneax]

OK, so the first version had some major flaws. This is version 2.0!

 

[hide=Version 1.0]I don't think total level is overrated. But I think that average level is a much better measure then total level. Someone with 12 99's and 12 1's would have average 50, which shows that they have unlocked very little (in comparison to xp).

 

 

 

Other suggestion: average percent of options unlocked. If skill A has 50 actions, all at a low level (say 60), it means that you can reach the all-options-available-level very early (assuming decent xp rates and all). Training any further will not contribute to your ranking, which makes sense to me, because it's not useful. If a skill would have many high-level options, you would need to train to a high level to have a decent rating in that skill. And skills like mining and cooking improve even up to level 99, because you'll mine just slightly faster at 99, or burn less fish.

 

 

 

These rankings are (supposed to be) based more or less on the effectiveness of the character. A true rating would also include quest points, achievement diaries, but not bounty hunter/FOG ratings, because these do not improve your character's performance (though practice improves the player's performance). High-end items give good bonusus, and therefore increase your effectiveness, so money/items would be a consideration as well. I don't know how to incorporate all these into a skill ranking, and it'd be impractical anyway. But dividing total levels by 24 isn't that hard, so I'd use that.[/hide]

 

 

 

Total level shows the same as average level. What I should have said is that the ratio total level/ideal total level matters. Your ideal total level is the maximum total level you could have at a given xp. You can combine this with the xp/hour rate to create a hours work/ideal hours work to show how many times more xp you could have had.

 

 

 

In practice: someone with 12m xp (lvl 98 I think) would have an average level of 121/24. He could have had 0.5m xp in every stat, or level 66, with an average level 1482/24. That means he has a efficiency rating of 121/1482. Combine this with the number of options available at a given level, and you can calculate how effecitve a character is.

 

 

 

Of course, fun is all that matters, really.

[Orly_Owl]

Well lets see.

 

A 99 in all honesty is meant to be the one thing that shows how good you are, but it does NOT do that. Usually it has someone with 99 fletching or cooking (the 2 easiest capes), level 100 or so and only a mere 1400 total level.

 

 

 

I would rather be a level 120 with 2000 total and no 99s than a level 120 with an untrimmed 99 cape of easiness.

 

And, a 99 only shows eliteness in ONE skill, whereas total = everything.

 

 

 

The one thing that doesnt matter is "TOTAL XP".

[bedman]

Dont ask me why, but I always like to have the lowest total xp from my total lvl (on highscores).

 

So for me, total xp isnt important at all. It scares me :-)

[green9090]

Dont ask me why, but I always like to have the lowest total xp from my total lvl (on highscores).

 

So for me, total xp isnt important at all. It scares me :-)

 

:|

[Miss War]

Yeah you are totally true, total levels are overated, even people with 30mill xp in a certain skill or even more than that, get less respect than someone that has 2000+ total level,

 

 

 

Miss

[bedman]

Yeah you are totally true, total levels are overated, even people with 30mill xp in a certain skill or even more than that, get less respect than someone that has 2000+ total level,

 

 

 

Miss

 

 

 

Of course the 2000+ total guy gets more respect.

 

 

 

2000+ total is mostly like 100m total xp, allthough you can get it with only 50m or so.

 

 

 

Secondly, 2000 total shows you are good in a lot of skills, not just one.

[psvstef]

Yeah you are totally true, total levels are overated, even people with 30mill xp in a certain skill or even more than that, get less respect than someone that has 2000+ total level,

 

 

 

Miss

 

 

 

Of course the 2000+ total guy gets more respect.

 

 

 

2000+ total is mostly like 100m total xp, allthough you can get it with only 50m or so.

 

 

 

Secondly, 2000 total shows you are good in a lot of skills, not just one.

 

 

 

how can you be good in skills? :?

[jords]

Yeah you are totally true, total levels are overated, even people with 30mill xp in a certain skill or even more than that, get less respect than someone that has 2000+ total level,

 

 

 

Miss

 

 

 

Of course the 2000+ total guy gets more respect.

 

 

 

2000+ total is mostly like 100m total xp, allthough you can get it with only 50m or so.

 

 

 

Secondly, 2000 total shows you are good in a lot of skills, not just one.

 

How so? Theres a link to combat in there somewhere 2000 total is far more challenging and low combat than it is at 120 cb. I am sort of mid combat (93) with 1919 total I'm sure I get more respect than a 120 with 2000 total. If i were 120 now I'd have 2100+ total or near there so there is a link to combat in there. Total levels do count though and are not overrated. As for exp you can still have 30mil exp in skills and high total level. I have 22mil cook exp, 26mil wc exp and 31mil thieving exp and I think I have a high total level (for my combat at least).

[bedman]

Yeah you are totally true, total levels are overated, even people with 30mill xp in a certain skill or even more than that, get less respect than someone that has 2000+ total level,

 

 

 

Miss

 

 

 

Of course the 2000+ total guy gets more respect.

 

 

 

2000+ total is mostly like 100m total xp, allthough you can get it with only 50m or so.

 

 

 

Secondly, 2000 total shows you are good in a lot of skills, not just one.

 

How so? Theres a link to combat in there somewhere 2000 total is far more challenging and low combat than it is at 120 cb. I am sort of mid combat (93) with 1919 total I'm sure I get more respect than a 120 with 2000 total. If i were 120 now I'd have 2100+ total or near there so there is a link to combat in there. Total levels do count though and are not overrated. As for exp you can still have 30mil exp in skills and high total level. I have 22mil cook exp, 26mil wc exp and 31mil thieving exp and I think I have a high total level (for my combat at least).

 

I dont understand what you are trying to say. I think you didnt understand me either.

 

 

 

I'm just saying that 2000 total > 30m xp in one skill and 1500 total. That's personal of course.

 

 

 

And by "good" in a skill, I mean, exerperienced. You know what it's like to lvl it. You know the tricks to train fast, etc...

[motocrossbri]

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...................

 

 

 

 

 

I rate people on how the spell words. Full words, phrases, and punctuation is good children.