Does "Attack" and "+Attack" actually make a difference?

[TheWilch]

i think it makes a difference. not a huge one, but one i notice.

 

 

 

but hey, i only have 19.3m (working on 20m) attack exp and 13m str. what would i bring to the table? :P

[langer]

I think the quesion the OP is trying to ask is in terms of PVP where you're combat level determines the level of your opponent, is it worth the combat levels of gaining 99 attack, or is it more beneficial to just stop at 80ish attack.

 

 

 

For instance, if I have 99 80 99, I should get beat by someone who has 99 99 99...however will 99 80 99 beat 93 93 93?

 

 

 

maybe thats not what he's asking, but I'm sure 100 post in a row of 99 attack > 60 attack was getting redundant.

 

 

 

No, he's saying that with mid 70s attack level, (it seems to him) you hit more eften of players wearing armor then with 99 attack under with the same situation. This would be really weird and since he hasn't shown any proof whatsoever, he's probably wrong.

[n64jive]

I think the quesion the OP is trying to ask is in terms of PVP where you're combat level determines the level of your opponent, is it worth the combat levels of gaining 99 attack, or is it more beneficial to just stop at 80ish attack.

 

 

 

For instance, if I have 99 80 99, I should get beat by someone who has 99 99 99...however will 99 80 99 beat 93 93 93?

 

 

 

maybe thats not what he's asking, but I'm sure 100 post in a row of 99 attack > 60 attack was getting redundant.

 

 

 

No, he's saying that with mid 70s attack level, (it seems to him) you hit more eften of players wearing armor then with 99 attack under with the same situation. This would be really weird and since he hasn't shown any proof whatsoever, he's probably wrong.

 

 

 

It must just be his perspective then. I could monitor all the damage I did at 98 attack and all the damage I did at 97 attack, and because of the nature of the formulas which include psuedo random numbers, there is a possibilty that I could show that 97 attack had more isntances of hitting above 40 then 98. In reality it shouldn't be like this, but it's possible.

 

 

 

So he could go out with two different accounts who levels are exactly the same except one has 70 attack and one has 99 attack, and do 1000 rounds of combat. The 99 should show more instances of hitting, however, because of the randomness, it would be possible for the 70 attack to show more chance.

 

 

 

That's why people like strength. It includes no randoms. With x str lvl and y str bonus, their max hit is z.

[langer]

It must just be his perspective then. I could monitor all the damage I did at 98 attack and all the damage I did at 97 attack, and because of the nature of the formulas which include psuedo random numbers, there is a possibilty that I could show that 97 attack had more isntances of hitting above 40 then 98. In reality it shouldn't be like this, but it's possible.

 

 

 

So he could go out with two different accounts who levels are exactly the same except one has 70 attack and one has 99 attack, and do 1000 rounds of combat. The 99 should show more instances of hitting, however, because of the randomness, it would be possible for the 70 attack to show more chance.

 

 

 

That's why people like strength. It includes no randoms. With x str lvl and y str bonus, their max hit is z

 

 

 

Yeah, a lot of people have said it must be selective perception that makes him think he used to hit more. Even if you monitor all the damage you do, it would not help at all. You would need to monitor every instance you hit. The damage dealt and total damage is obtained with the strenght variable.

 

 

 

I agree that even testing 99 attack vs 75 attack, you could end up with 75 attack getting more succesful hits, but if the combat system follows the law of probability, then with a large sample you would prove that 99 attack makes you hit more often than 75 attack.

 

 

 

This thread reminds me of a friend who burnt 3 sharks in his inventory at 92 cooking and started claiming you burn less at 85-90 cooking than 92 cooking. Selective perception and the lack of data make us believe in false realities.

[999134]

I notice a huge difference in my accuracy when i pot up...

 

there is no way attack does not effect your accuracy.

[MstrMonopoly]

It must just be his perspective then. I could monitor all the damage I did at 98 attack and all the damage I did at 97 attack, and because of the nature of the formulas which include psuedo random numbers, there is a possibilty that I could show that 97 attack had more isntances of hitting above 40 then 98. In reality it shouldn't be like this, but it's possible.

 

 

 

So he could go out with two different accounts who levels are exactly the same except one has 70 attack and one has 99 attack, and do 1000 rounds of combat. The 99 should show more instances of hitting, however, because of the randomness, it would be possible for the 70 attack to show more chance.

 

 

 

That's why people like strength. It includes no randoms. With x str lvl and y str bonus, their max hit is z

 

 

 

Yeah, a lot of people have said it must be selective perception that makes him think he used to hit more. Even if you monitor all the damage you do, it would not help at all. You would need to monitor every instance you hit. The damage dealt and total damage is obtained with the strenght variable.

 

 

 

I agree that even testing 99 attack vs 75 attack, you could end up with 75 attack getting more succesful hits, but if the combat system follows the law of probability, then with a large sample you would prove that 99 attack makes you hit more often than 75 attack.

 

 

 

This thread reminds me of a friend who burnt 3 sharks in his inventory at 92 cooking and started claiming you burn less at 85-90 cooking than 92 cooking. Selective perception and the lack of data make us believe in false realities.

 

 

 

Dude, that same thing happened to me. The higher Hunter level I got, the harder it became to catch everything.

[@Dan3HitU]

Almost every other skills is useless past a certain level, not many have "99" benefits.

 

By his faulty logic, Strength is useless after 78 too. :roll:

 

Don't you just love people that don't read things properly.

[Darkkalphite]

Drink 3 kegs of beers, get 2 attack and 90-ish strength and try to attack an armoured player. You will see.

 

 

 

(Constant 0's with the occasional high hit. I've tried it.)

[sadukar123]

Almost every other skills is useless past a certain level, not many have "99" benefits.

 

By his faulty logic, Strength is useless after 78 too. :roll:

 

Don't you just love people that don't read things properly.

 

Don't you just love people that comes up with conspiracy theories.

[n64jive]

Almost every other skills is useless past a certain level, not many have "99" benefits.

 

By his faulty logic, Strength is useless after 78 too. :roll:

 

Don't you just love people that don't read things properly.

 

Don't you just love people that comes up with conspiracy theories.

 

 

 

Not really a conspiracy...more of just a theory, and science is fueled with theories...so yes, I love theories! I agree that it's a perspective thing. It's like gambling. I could sit down at a slot machine, and get the jackpot after 10 spins. From then on out, I'm going to think slots are easy money. Talk to the people who spends countless paychecks at the casino. They'll give you a difference story(which is true considering that casino's make money)..

 

 

 

The problem here is most likely that Jagex's formula doesn't make the difference significant. I don't think they should increase it, tho as is koing is already easy enough.

[sadukar123]

He's making a "special" case for Attack, yet he never questions Strength or Defence.

[langer]

He's making a "special" case for Attack, yet he never questions Strength or Defence.

 

 

 

You ever see a pure bothering with defence?

[sadukar123]

He's making a "special" case for Attack, yet he never questions Strength or Defence.

 

 

 

You ever see a pure bothering with defence?

 

Barrows, Berserker?

[3hitm4g3u]

He's making a "special" case for Attack, yet he never questions Strength or Defence.

 

 

 

The benefits of Strength and Defence are obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

...And there's no such thing as a 'barrows pure'.

[sadukar123]

He's making a "special" case for Attack, yet he never questions Strength or Defence.

 

 

 

The benefits of Strength and Defence are obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

...And there's no such thing as a 'barrows pure'.

 

Sure there is.

 

 

 

Defence is not as obvious as Attack? Nice selective perception.

[demby123]

He's making a "special" case for Attack, yet he never questions Strength or Defence.

...And there's no such thing as a 'barrows pure'.

 

:cry:

[3hitm4g3u]

He's making a "special" case for Attack, yet he never questions Strength or Defence.

 

 

 

The benefits of Strength and Defence are obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

...And there's no such thing as a 'barrows pure'.

 

Sure there is.

 

 

 

Defence is not as obvious as Attack? Nice selective perception.

 

 

 

No, there isn't.

 

 

 

And yes it is.

[sadukar123]

He's making a "special" case for Attack, yet he never questions Strength or Defence.

 

 

 

The benefits of Strength and Defence are obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

...And there's no such thing as a 'barrows pure'.

 

Sure there is.

 

 

 

Defence is not as obvious as Attack? Nice selective perception.

 

 

 

No, there isn't.

 

 

 

And yes it is.

 

Typical yes/no argument. :roll:

[3hitm4g3u]

He's making a "special" case for Attack, yet he never questions Strength or Defence.

 

 

 

The benefits of Strength and Defence are obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

...And there's no such thing as a 'barrows pure'.

 

Sure there is.

 

 

 

Defence is not as obvious as Attack? Nice selective perception.

 

 

 

No, there isn't.

 

 

 

And yes it is.

 

Typical yes/no argument. :roll:

 

 

 

First part was fact, second part was opinion.

[sadukar123]

Mind telling me who made it up? :roll: Let me guess, the same ones that speak of the nonexistent honour code.

[3hitm4g3u]

Mind telling me who made it up? :roll: Let me guess, the same ones that speak of the nonexistent honour code.

 

 

 

Nobody made it up. I just told you it's a fact.

[sadukar123]

So much for a fact.

[3hitm4g3u]

So much for a fact.

 

 

 

How could 29 levels away from being maxed melee possible be considered pure?

 

 

 

Pure = Offence over defence.

 

 

 

People tend to accept 45 defence as pure because of the tremendous strength bonus 45 defence has over 1 defence.

 

 

 

70 defence has +4 strength bonus over 45 defence.

 

 

 

And that's with bandos tassets.

[Inuashakent]

Lol. Yes, attack matters. It's clear when you go to monsters with higher defense. Or go to monsters with decent defense, even. Time your exp rates with your friend with lower attack. I can assure you you will get less.

[Needaname]

Ok, i won't use an attack example, i would use something that you will understand.

 

 

 

Using str, when you lvl str you don't hit 1 more till you reach 2-4 lvls same with attack.

 

Now lets take +Attack like +Str.

 

Whats your max hit with 0 +Str? What lvl are you?

 

Now whats your max with a weapon? How much +Str it has?

 

 

 

Same with attack more +Attack the better.

 

Now traduce everything you saw before with attack and there you go.