Summoning is awful....

[Nomrombom]

It's not that I hate Summoning, it's just that I think Jagex made it WAY too expensive/long to train.

 

 

 

The methods most serious people use for getting charms is barraging various monsters such as rock lobsters. Seriously, that requires Desert Quest, a very hard quest (not compared to While Guthix Sleeps or anything, but you get the point). The longest and most time consuming part of summoning is obviously getting charms. To reach high goals such as 40's-50's, you could spend WEEKS killing monsters unless you have ice barrage. Jagex is practically forcing us to use hideously expensive methods to get charms at a normal rate. And then you have to buy shards to make pouches, which are 25 gp each. That doesn't sound like much, until you figure how many shards it takes to get level 99. Since it is kind of a basemark, I used the calculator on TIP (Thanks Tippy ) I found out that (I know you couldn't do it, but just to give a estimate) and you need 1,401,552 Dreadfowl pouches to get 1-99. At 8 shards each, that's 11,212,416 shards. Shards at 25 gp each - 280,310,400 gp for 1 to 99 on dreadfowl pouches. Yes, for those of you mathematically challenged, that's 280.3 BILLION gp. Yes, I know that's if you just make the pouches and don't summon them, but even if you did, that would still leave probably over 200 B gp. And that's not even including the charms you have to get yourself. :shock: :shock: . I know for certain I won't have anything near 200B gp in the near future, and I don't think anyone else will either. Plus, the things you can summon aren't THAT helpful. Yes, Bunyips are great, Terrorbirds, Titans, etc. But everything else? Crap. And if you spent the time getting your combat up instead of summoning, you could probably get a 99. I don't have anything against summoning, I just think that Jagex implemented it horribly. Would it be better if you could just buy the charms? But the prices would obviously have to be quite high to keep everything in check, maybe having gold charms be 1-2k each. This still is horribly expensive, but at least you can make the money some other way and then buy charms instead of spending money for equipment to kill for them. Thoughts? Please don't flame too hard : .

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

I see 280 million, not billion.

 

 

 

Now, although I feel that Summoning is ridiculously expensive to train, consider the other money sink, Construction. It was put into the game to remove money from the game, without gaining too much collateral in return (although Scrying pool is perfect on PvP worlds), whereas with Summoning, you get useful familiars with certain levels.

 

 

 

In conclusion, I feel that although that kind of price is obscene, the cost of getting 1-99 Summoning can be well justified.

[compfreak847]

Your completely missing the point of passive charm gathering. All good training methods will give charms; right now I'm camping at demons for profit and melee XP, and as a side effect churning out thousands of crimsons. Charms are fairly easy to collect, and the time and cost are the balancing agent for one of the most powerful skills in Runescape, which brings me to my second point:

 

 

 

You don't have the slightest clue how powerful it is. Your summoning level isn't even ranked. It's like complaining about the weakness of prayer at level 13. Summoning is invaluable in combat, triples trip length at bosses, boosts drops, productivity, XP, heals, and generally makes your life more convenient.

 

 

 

Give it a test run. Train it halfway to level 92, then try it out and see how it is at 50% potential. I've made over 800m with summoning, don't try to tell me it's not useful.

[pureprayer]

 

 

 

Get ready.

[Jesus_Status]

I haven't done alot of extensive testing but with the estimated times I've gotten then summoning works out to be about 40k experience an hour overall. If you factor in the time to gather the charms and then make them. Also summoning is indeed expensive but your not factoring the money you make off drops you obtain while getting charms, by them time you have the charms for 99 you will have made a large chunck of money to pay for summoning. Unless you burt lobbies of course :thumbsup:

[Sir_Kurity]

Its a GREAT skill, why make such a great skill easy to get?

[Sinkhan]

Sadly a great deal of people feel the same way as he does and thus level 30s are ranked 300-400k on the HS tables.

 

 

 

I really want that terrorbird. It seems like such an incredibly useful familiar yet cheap to use.

 

 

 

But yes, regular combat will net you a great deal of charms. You don't have to actively go and get the charms, just sit back and relax and wait until you've got a large stockpile to start training with.

 

 

 

And when push comes to shove, there's always ToG and Penguins \

[Inuashakent]

[hide=Failed argument]Number of charms required (Assuming using only Crimsons) (Parenthesis is shards-per-pouch.)

 

 

 

Honeybadgers - 535 (84)

 

Bloated leeches - 1,466 (117)

 

Stranger plants - 2,448 (128)

 

Granite lobster - 6,642 (166)

 

Swamp titans - 8,746 (150)

 

Wolpertinger - 5,569 (203)

 

Pack yak -2,187 (198)

 

Iron titan - 7,931 (211)

 

 

 

===== 36,514 Crimson charms

 

 

 

 

 

The cost of shards (Look above for the number of each and number of shards per pouch.) (I am assuming you buy them for 25 each)

 

 

 

Honeybadgers - 1,123,500

 

Bloated leeches - 4,288,050

 

Stranger plants - 7,833,600

 

Granite lobster - 27,564,300

 

Swamp titans - 32,794,500

 

Wolpertinger - 28,262,675

 

Pack yak - 10,825,650

 

Iron titan - 41,836,025

 

 

 

=====154,528,300 Coins for Shards

 

 

 

 

 

Cash back for trading shards for 70% at Bogrog. (Look above for the number of each and number of shards per pouch.) (I am assuming you sell them for 25 each)

 

 

 

Honeybadgers - 786,450

 

Bloated leeches - 3,001,635

 

Stranger plants - 5,483,520

 

Granite lobster - 19,295,010

 

Swamp titans - 22,956,150

 

Wolpertinger - 19,783,872

 

Pack yak - 7,577,955

 

Iron titan - 29,285,217

 

 

 

===== 108,169,809 Coins cash back for Shards

 

===== 46,358,491 Coins total for Shards

 

 

 

 

 

Cost of Secondary ingredients (Assuming you buy them for medium price 7/28/08) (Parenthesis is amount needed per level)

 

 

 

Honeybadgers - 130 (535)

 

Bloated leeches - 69 (1,466)

 

Stranger plants - 1,144 (2,448)

 

Granite lobster - 1,263 (6,642)

 

Swamp titans - 1,259 (8,746)

 

Wolpertinger - Raw rabbit = 86 | Wolf bone = 453 (5,569)

 

Pack yak - 154 (2,187)

 

Iron titan - 375 (7,931)

 

 

 

===== N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Number of coins on secondary ingredients

 

 

 

Honeybadgers - 69,550

 

Bloated leeches - 101,154

 

Stranger plants - 2,800,512

 

Granite lobster - 8,388,846

 

Swamp titans - 11,011,214

 

Wolpertinger - 478934 | 2,522,757 = 3,001,691

 

Pack yak - 336,798

 

Iron titan - 2,974,125

 

 

 

===== 28,683,890 Coins total for Secondary ingredients

 

75,042,381 Coins total on Secondary ingredients and Shards

 

 

 

 

 

Cost of charms at Rock lobsters.(I am assuming you bought runes at medium price. 7/28/08)

 

 

 

220 Crimsons/1,000 Bursts

 

 

 

292/Death. 584/Gp on Deaths.

 

98/Chaos. 392/Gp on Chaos.

 

16/Water. 64/Gp on Waters.

 

 

 

1040 Coins/Burst.

 

1,040,000/1000 Bursts

 

1,040,000/220 Crimsons

 

 

 

4727 Coins per Crimsons at Rock lobsters.

 

36,514 Crimson charms for 99.

 

 

 

172,601,678 Coins for bursting

 

===== FINISHING =====

 

 

 

 

 

28,683,890 Coins total for Secondary ingredients

 

46,358,491 Coins total for Shards

 

172,601,678 Coins for Burst Rock lobsters.

 

 

 

247,644,059 Coins total if you burst Rock lobsters.

 

75,042,381 Coins total if you kill Waterfiends/Slayer. (Assuming you don't make any money from either.)(Although you will. ;), so it's more around 50m from Waterfiends... )[/hide]

 

 

 

It's nowhere close to 200B. It's 3.5% of that. There are MANY alternatives to Rock lobsters, and if you do some math you'll easily see that Rock lobsters don't cost that much either. Before you make a rant, at least do some research.

 

 

 

PS. Your ranting you can't powertrain you way to 99 without doing a level 50 quest?

 

 

Plus, the things you can summon aren't THAT helpful. Yes, Bunyips are great, Terrorbirds, Titans, etc. But everything else? Crap.

 

 

 

1st lesson in English class. Don't make bold statements without evidence. Combat familiars add 10k+ xp/hour, how is that now A LOT? Pack yaks and Tortoise gives many inventory spaces, and with a BoB and Healing familiar you can make your GWD runs over twice as long without. Healers aren't as useful as you make them out to be, especially for training. Also Summoning is pretty ast to train (100+ charms an hour) and you make profit and good xp while killing Waterfiends.

[compfreak847]

 

It's nowhere close to 200B. It's 3.5% of that. There are MANY alternatives to Rock lobsters, and if you do some math you'll easily see that Rock lobsters don't cost that much either. Before you make a rant, at least do some research.

 

 

 

PS. Your ranting you can't powertrain you way to 99 without doing a level 50 quest?

 

Someone's back... and angry.

[Alg]

Terrorbirds alone have paid for summoning on every level for me.

 

Plus, I never actively sought charms. I trained combat and got them. When I had enough, I thought, "Hey cool, 53/65/72 summoning banked" and trained it. I use Bunyips and terrorbirds to extend boss trips, tortoises to carry things, and even cobras to train attack (thing's pretty good... Though will obviously be outclassed by the next higher familiar, that's the point)

 

 

 

Plus nobody in their right mind would go from 1-99 on a level 3 gold charm familiar. Most just use the thing that gives the most experience at their level :-w

[Inuashakent]

 

It's nowhere close to 200B. It's 3.5% of that. There are MANY alternatives to Rock lobsters, and if you do some math you'll easily see that Rock lobsters don't cost that much either. Before you make a rant, at least do some research.

 

 

 

PS. Your ranting you can't powertrain you way to 99 without doing a level 50 quest?

 

Someone's back... and angry.

 

:) I've never been gone from TIF, just RS. I'm not mad. :lol: :D

[Cheefoo]

I found out that (I know you couldn't do it, but just to give a estimate) and you need 1,401,552 Dreadfowl pouches to get 1-99. At 8 shards each, that's 11,212,416 shards. Shards at 25 gp each - 280,310,400 gp for 1 to 99 on dreadfowl pouches. Yes, for those of you mathematically challenged, that's 280.3 BILLION gp.

 

 

 

:thumbup:

[iLootChests]

are you [developmentally delayed]ed the whole point of gettining the charms is becasue jagex didnt want other cheap easily botten skill like fletch, cook, fm, or even craft, cons or smith

 

 

 

 

 

they wanted it to be a hard 99 they basicly posted this the day it came out....

[compfreak847]

are you [developmentally delayed] the whole point of gettining the charms is becasue jagex didnt want other cheap easily botten skill like fletch, cook, fm, or even craft, cons or smith

 

 

 

 

 

they wanted it to be a hard 99 they basicly posted this the day it came out....

 

But that would mean reading the development diarys. Some of us dont like to waiste our time wit stuipd thngs like reading, reading is for nerdz lol and im 1 of da kwl kids i dont want ppl to tnk that im a nerd cuz i read the update.

 

 

 

Intelligence fail is, well, unintelligent.

 

 

 

Off topic: (Well, not really, I sense a connection deep down in the primitive neuron firings of my subconscious), I hate stupid people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gah. I believe in my plan to save humanity. The 30% of the population with the lowest IQ should be chemically castrated, at no charge, when him or her turns 14, the age when the test can be accurately performed. This will be the equivalent of vacuuming off the proverbial scum from the gene pool, with a good dose of chlorine thrown in. It'll speed up natural selection, and quickly increase our intelligence until within a few dozen generations all humans are operating at a level above what is considered 'genius' to this generation.

 

 

 

Who's with me?

[sees_all1]

Gah. I believe in my plan to save humanity. The 30% of the population with the lowest IQ should be chemically castrated, at no charge, when him or her turns 14, the age when the test can be accurately performed. This will be the equivalent of vacuuming off the proverbial scum from the gene pool, with a good dose of chlorine thrown in. It'll speed up natural selection, and quickly increase our intelligence until within a few dozen generations all humans are operating at a level above what is considered 'genius' to this generation.

 

 

 

Who's with me?

 

 

 

That's the same mentality that the Nazis had about 70-80 years ago. Its eugenics, and it isn't something to joke about. Every mass homicide in the history of the world started with thoughts of "Well they're not human, so we don't have to treat them as human" or "How is life worth living in that condition?"

 

 

 

GJ, jerk.

[compfreak847]

 

That's the same mentality that the Nazis had about 70-80 years ago. Its eugenics, and it isn't something to joke about. Every mass homicide in the history of the world started with thoughts of "Well they're not human, so we don't have to treat them as human" or "How is life worth living in that condition?"

 

 

 

GJ, jerk.

 

Who said anything about living? It's preventing contraception, not killing them. Painless and free. They can still adopt and lead normal lives, but the faulty genes won't be passed down.

 

 

 

It's the same thing that would be happening anyway with natural selection, had we not interfered by preventing death with medical technology - a good thing, but some other method to continue the process should be used.

[iLootChests]

[hide=]

are you [developmentally delayed] the whole point of gettining the charms is becasue jagex didnt want other cheap easily botten skill like fletch, cook, fm, or even craft, cons or smith

 

 

 

 

 

they wanted it to be a hard 99 they basicly posted this the day it came out....

 

But that would mean reading the development diarys. Some of us dont like to waiste our time wit stuipd thngs like reading, reading is for nerdz lol and im 1 of da kwl kids i dont want ppl to tnk that im a nerd cuz i read the update.

 

 

 

Intelligence fail is, well, unintelligent.

 

 

 

Off topic: (Well, not really, I sense a connection deep down in the primitive neuron firings of my subconscious), I hate stupid people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gah. I believe in my plan to save humanity. The 30% of the population with the lowest IQ should be chemically castrated, at no charge, when him or her turns 14, the age when the test can be accurately performed. This will be the equivalent of vacuuming off the proverbial scum from the gene pool, with a good dose of chlorine thrown in. It'll speed up natural selection, and quickly increase our intelligence until within a few dozen generations all humans are operating at a level above what is considered 'genius' to this generation.

 

 

 

Who's with me?

[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

im with you and i think that chearleader might be first to go :?

[compfreak847]

The hilarious part is that it's real. Yahoo deleted the question yesterday, but it still shows up in the Google cache at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=cheerleaders+y+du+u+think+their+stupid&btnG=Search. The yahoo account also still exists, I imagine she'll be getting a bit of spam in the next few weeks (and rightly so).

[sees_all1]

 

Who said anything about living? It's preventing contraception, not killing them. Painless and free. They can still adopt and lead normal lives, but the faulty genes won't be passed down.

 

 

 

It's the same thing that would be happening anyway with natural selection, had we not interfered by preventing death with medical technology - a good thing, but some other method to continue the process should be used.

 

Compfreak - you don't get it. You're making people out to be "sub-human." Its alright if we maim them, they're not people.

 

What if I told you that you had some undesirable traits, but since you've already procreated, there's nothing we can do now except castrate your children, who carry your traits?

 

 

 

What you're un-apologetically saying is that "dumb" people are undesirable, and that is wrong.

 

Its equivalent to what the Nazis did. It all starts out with one person, with their idea that there are "classes of humans" that certain traits are desirable, and that we know what traits are desirable. Its what spawns all bigotry and racism, and if you can't understand that, then you've got serious issues.

[Sir_Kurity]

Actually, with the nazis didn't they only select based on looks to make the "perfect race" and not IQ?

 

 

 

Now compfreaks crazy warped idea, although just as inhumane selects based on people with half a brain or more, that would be the real "perfect species" :shock: .

[compfreak847]

 

Compfreak - you don't get it. You're making people out to be "sub-human." Its alright if we maim them, they're not people.

 

Like I said, it's painless with no drawbacks. It in no way impedes the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it just means your children won't carry your exact genes.

 

 

 

 

What if I told you that you had some undesirable traits, but since you've already procreated, there's nothing we can do now except castrate your children, who carry your traits?

 

I'd be fine with that. It won't affect their lives, and it's for the good of society as a whole. Aren't police who stop murders doing the same thing? They are impeding one persons desires to keep him from infringing on another persons rights, the only difference being that desire aren't even impeded.

 

 

 

 

What you're un-apologetically saying is that "dumb" people are undesirable, and that is wrong.

 

Why is that wrong? For millions of years the dumb and weak have been weeded out, or we'd still be 1 celled organisms. This isn't a weeding out, this is just a blocking that in no way impairs function or life enjoyment.

 

 

 

 

Its equivalent to what the Nazis did. It all starts out with one person, with their idea that there are "classes of humans" that certain traits are desirable, and that we know what traits are desirable.

 

No, it's a much more humane equivalent to what's been naturally happening for millions of years before we advanced enough to interfere and stagnated development.

 

 

 

Its what spawns all bigotry and racism, and if you can't understand that, then you've got serious issues.

 

Hilariously hypocritical win. And this isn't altering the lifestyles or separating people into groups of superior or inferior, it's simply non-invasive blocking genes related to lower intelligence, an easily measurable factor that can be corrected without violating human rights.

[sees_all1]

Actually, with the nazis didn't they only select based on looks to make the "perfect race" and not IQ?

 

 

 

Now compfreaks crazy warped idea, although just as inhumane selects based on people with half a brain or more, that would be the real "perfect species" :shock: .

 

 

 

Compfreaks' idea wouldn't solve anything - there are still deaf, blind, mentally disturbed people in the world, even though about 70-80 years ago, about 60,000 individuals like this were castrated in the United States alone.

 

 

 

there's a nice fat wikipedia entry on this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

 

 

Eugenics itself may seem like a "good idea" with "decent goals", but the way you'd go about doing it (AND the way its historically been done) is barbaric and is a monstrosity in and of itself.

 

It rapes the dignity of a human being, and it basically says to everyone in that class: "Look it, I don't like you, and because I don't like you, not only am I going to harm you, I'm going to make sure you don't have a family, or a normal life anymore."

 

 

 

Like I said, it's painless with no drawbacks.

 

So, you'd be willing to have your 'nads removed because I don't like your characteristics?

 

I'd imagine it would be painful, but more than that it's invasive.

 

I'd be fine with that. It won't affect their lives, and it's for the good of society as a whole. Aren't police who stop murders doing the same thing? They are impeding one persons desires to keep him from infringing on another persons rights, the only difference being that desire aren't even impeded.

 

But it would affect their lives. Its the same thing as, you need to wear a yellow Star of David on the outside of your coats so we can easily identify you.

 

 

 

I'd be fine with that. It won't affect their lives, and it's for the good of society as a whole. Aren't police who stop murders doing the same thing? They are impeding one persons desires to keep him from infringing on another persons rights, the only difference being that desire aren't even impeded.

 

That's a bunch of logical bull that doesn't even apply to this situation. And the underlying premise, that you're not impeding someone's desire by castrating them is wrong. What if that individual wanted to have children? Then you're stopping them from having children, you've stopped their "desire".

 

 

 

Why is that wrong? For millions of years the dumb and weak have been weeded out, or we'd still be 1 celled organisms. This isn't a weeding out, this is just a blocking that in no way impairs function or life enjoyment.

 

Is sickle-cell anemia a desirable trait? No? Well, its the product of your "weeding out" - Approximately one third of all aboriginal inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene. Do you propose that we castrate all these individuals, because they have a "detrimental" gene in modern day society?

 

 

 

it's simply non-invasive blocking genes related to lower intelligence, an easily measurable factor that can be corrected without violating human rights.

 

Surgically removing someone's genitals is "non-invasive"?

 

There is no test that can accurately measure a person's intelligence. Most tests today are criticized for not being able to account for someone's "artistic intelligence".

 

Besides, the cheerleader you're referring to in your original post could pass one of your intelligence tests - what's being described is nurture rather than nature.

[Sir_Kurity]

So, you'd be willing to have your 'nads removed because I don't like your characteristics?

 

I'd imagine it would be painful, but more than that it's invasive.

 

 

 

Surgically removing someone's genitals is "non-invasive"?

 

There is no test that can accurately measure a person's intelligence. Most tests today are criticized for not being able to account for someone's "artistic intelligence".

 

Besides, the cheerleader you're referring to in your original post could pass one of your intelligence tests - what's being described is nurture rather than nature.

 

 

 

Actually, Isn't chemical castration just an injection?

 

 

 

Though i do agree there is no accurate way to measure a persons intelligence.

[compfreak847]

 

So, you'd be willing to have your 'nads removed because I don't like your characteristics?

 

I'd imagine it would be painful, but more than that it's invasive.

 

I'm not talking about physical castration, I'm talking about chemically induced sterility. Think the pill, only more permanent. More details on research at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... ility.html

 

 

 

 

That's a bunch of logical bull that doesn't even apply to this situation. And the underlying premise, that you're not impeding someone's desire by castrating them is wrong. What if that individual wanted to have children? Then you're stopping them from having children, you've stopped their "desire".

 

Then why'd you bring it up? If they want children, adopt. Very simple.

 

 

 

 

But it would affect their lives. Its the same thing as, you need to wear a yellow Star of David on the outside of your coats so we can easily identify you.

 

Having adopted instead of biological children isn't exactly the same as being rounding up, shipped off to a camp, and killed. No human rights are being violated.

 

 

 

 

Is sickle-cell anemia a desirable trait? No? Well, its the product of your "weeding out" - Approximately one third of all aboriginal inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene. Do you propose that we castrate all these individuals, because they have a "detrimental" gene in modern day society?

 

Nope, my idea deals exclusively with intelligence. Beyond that, there is no universally accepted way to determine what is 'good' or 'bad' - natural selection runs its course more often in 3rd world companies.

 

 

 

 

Surgically removing someone's genitals is "non-invasive"?

 

See above.

 

 

 

 

There is no test that can accurately measure a person's intelligence.

 

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale has been generally accepted as an accurate measurement of problem solving and analytical skills for over 50 years.

 

 

 

Most tests today are criticized for not being able to account for someone's "artistic intelligence".

 

Tests could be developed, but artistic ability usually corresponds to an increase in IQ scores (Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... cb09d7e80b)

 

 

 

 

Besides, the cheerleader you're referring to in your original post could pass one of your intelligence tests - what's being described is nurture rather than nature.

 

You have no idea - chances are likely she wouldn't anyway. Lack of basic english\grammar skills and abhorrence of anything 'intelligent' indicates difficulty with problem solving skills, along with various social problems stemming from defensiveness and irrationality.

[Sir_Kurity]

Might not be its first language.