I personaly LOVE defence and thats why i am 2 days away from getting 99 ;) and i can find it very very usefull my friend and i like to dm alot and he has 85 attk 95 str and 85 def where at the time of the dm i had 85 attk 85 str and 95 def and i wont 5/7 times, we were using same aroumoeur same pots same prayers and stuff so in this case it seems defence beats str out, iguess you just got unlucky.

The effectiveness of your defense level is ALWAYS relative to your opponent's attack level (given you are using similar weapons and armor)

i agree they need to make defence a bigger part of runescape and combat, it is useless against strength and attack, i think if your attack is over someone's defence lvl then you should own it, but if your attack is lower...see lots of 0's...

Hence what I just said :P

defence must have some uses, it cnt jst sit there to look pretty lol x

instead of reducing the max hit, reduce the chance that the hit is high (so lets say 1 def the chance that someone hits a 60 on you [if that is his max hit] is 1/60 and when you got 99 the chance is like 1/594 [multiplying 60 with 9,9]) this is just a suggestion, but it seems better then to lower the max hit of the opponent.

Indeed, lowering max hits would screw up everything.

How.....

How.....

 

 

 

Yeah, how? Don't spout rubbish without giving evidence. Honestly speaking, I don't see HOW the [bleep] lowering max hits would screw things up. As long as the "damage resistance" is reasonable.

How.....

 

 

 

Yeah, how? Don't spout rubbish without giving evidence. Honestly speaking, I don't see HOW the [bleep] lowering max hits would screw things up. As long as the "damage resistance" is reasonable.

 

 

 

How the hell are you supposed to efficiently train with higher leveled enemies resisting your damage? Don't say "uhhh, damage resistance should only be pvp", that's poor game design (inconsistency). While on the other hand - having exp remain the same (e.g. you normally hit a 10, it resists down to 5, but you still receive 40 exp), it would make training combat too easy (each enemy yields more exp). It pointlessly throws things out of balance either way.

 

 

 

Pfft, Imagine how long F2P combat would take with damage resistance.

 

 

 

Anyway, we already have the divine and elysian shields (ignoring the cost), and that's how Jagex intends to treat this concept, purely as a fancy perk for the wealthy.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't we alter the combat system? Because much of the game thus far as been constructed around it, it would more negative impact than positive. There's nothing wrong with the combat system now anyway, RS is unique.

How.....

 

 

 

Yeah, how? Don't spout rubbish without giving evidence. Honestly speaking, I don't see HOW the [bleep] lowering max hits would screw things up. As long as the "damage resistance" is reasonable.

 

 

 

How the hell are you supposed to efficiently train with higher leveled enemies resisting your damage? Don't say "uhhh, damage resistance should only be pvp", that's poor game design (inconsistency). While on the other hand - having exp remain the same (e.g. you normally hit a 10, it resists down to 5, but you still receive 40 exp), it would make training combat too easy (each enemy yields more exp). It pointlessly throws things out of balance either way.

 

 

 

Pfft, Imagine how long F2P combat would take with damage resistance.

 

 

 

Anyway, we already have the divine and elysian shields (ignoring the cost), and that's how Jagex intends to treat this concept, purely as a fancy perk for the wealthy.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't we alter the combat system? Because much of the game thus far as been constructed around it, it would more negative impact than positive. There's nothing wrong with the combat system now anyway, RS is unique.

 

 

 

All your points are true.

 

 

 

I think the combat system could be altered still - maybe in a new version of RS? RS4? Mechscape? I don't know.

How.....

 

 

 

Yeah, how? Don't spout rubbish without giving evidence. Honestly speaking, I don't see HOW the [bleep] lowering max hits would screw things up. As long as the "damage resistance" is reasonable.

 

 

 

How the hell are you supposed to efficiently train with higher leveled enemies resisting your damage? Don't say "uhhh, damage resistance should only be pvp", that's poor game design (inconsistency). While on the other hand - having exp remain the same (e.g. you normally hit a 10, it resists down to 5, but you still receive 40 exp), it would make training combat too easy (each enemy yields more exp). It pointlessly throws things out of balance either way.

 

 

 

Pfft, Imagine how long F2P combat would take with damage resistance.

 

 

 

Anyway, we already have the divine and elysian shields (ignoring the cost), and that's how Jagex intends to treat this concept, purely as a fancy perk for the wealthy.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't we alter the combat system? Because much of the game thus far as been constructed around it, it would more negative impact than positive. There's nothing wrong with the combat system now anyway, RS is unique.

 

 

 

All your points are true.

 

 

 

I think the combat system could be altered still - maybe in a new version of RS? RS4? Mechscape? I don't know.

 

 

 

Were did rs3 go. :lol:

 

 

 

Your point about combat being to easy is outwieghed by the monster having more hp so you would need more food or higher healing food so it would cost more and even then you probably won't be able to stay there as long as you previously could.

 

 

 

Instead of ignoring the cost of those shields lets look at it, 390 and 343 million, this is not a practical means to increase your chances of survival in certain places, for example your not going to take something that cost that much in to a pvp world.

How.....

 

 

 

Yeah, how? Don't spout rubbish without giving evidence. Honestly speaking, I don't see HOW the [bleep] lowering max hits would screw things up. As long as the "damage resistance" is reasonable.

 

 

 

How the hell are you supposed to efficiently train with higher leveled enemies resisting your damage? Don't say "uhhh, damage resistance should only be pvp", that's poor game design (inconsistency). While on the other hand - having exp remain the same (e.g. you normally hit a 10, it resists down to 5, but you still receive 40 exp), it would make training combat too easy (each enemy yields more exp). It pointlessly throws things out of balance either way.

 

 

 

Pfft, Imagine how long F2P combat would take with damage resistance.

 

 

 

Anyway, we already have the divine and elysian shields (ignoring the cost), and that's how Jagex intends to treat this concept, purely as a fancy perk for the wealthy.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't we alter the combat system? Because much of the game thus far as been constructed around it, it would more negative impact than positive. There's nothing wrong with the combat system now anyway, RS is unique.

 

 

 

All your points are true.

 

 

 

I think the combat system could be altered still - maybe in a new version of RS? RS4? Mechscape? I don't know.

 

 

 

Were did rs3 go. :lol:

 

 

 

Your point about combat being to easy is outwieghed by the monster having more hp so you would need more food or higher healing food so it would cost more and even then you probably won't be able to stay there as long as you previously could.

 

 

 

Instead of ignoring the cost of those shields lets look at it, 390 and 343 million, this is not a practical means to increase your chances of survival in certain places, for example your not going to take something that cost that much in to a pvp world.

 

 

 

Yes, exactly, a "fancy perk for the wealthy".

 

 

 

and... what? food? Take ankous for instance.... as it stands, 5k worth of monks will return ~200k+ in drops from a good hour of training. The slight increase in damage you would be receiveing would probbaly make that initial food cost 7-10k depending on your combat level. Is that a big change?

I meant the damage you were doing to the monster would be reduced.

How.....

 

 

 

Yeah, how? Don't spout rubbish without giving evidence. Honestly speaking, I don't see HOW the [bleep] lowering max hits would screw things up. As long as the "damage resistance" is reasonable.

 

 

 

How the hell are you supposed to efficiently train with higher leveled enemies resisting your damage? Don't say "uhhh, damage resistance should only be pvp", that's poor game design (inconsistency). While on the other hand - having exp remain the same (e.g. you normally hit a 10, it resists down to 5, but you still receive 40 exp), it would make training combat too easy (each enemy yields more exp). It pointlessly throws things out of balance either way.

 

 

 

Pfft, Imagine how long F2P combat would take with damage resistance.

 

 

 

Anyway, we already have the divine and elysian shields (ignoring the cost), and that's how Jagex intends to treat this concept, purely as a fancy perk for the wealthy.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't we alter the combat system? Because much of the game thus far as been constructed around it, it would more negative impact than positive. There's nothing wrong with the combat system now anyway, RS is unique.

 

 

 

All your points are true.

 

 

 

I think the combat system could be altered still - maybe in a new version of RS? RS4? Mechscape? I don't know.

 

 

 

Were did rs3 go. :lol:

 

 

 

Your point about combat being to easy is outwieghed by the monster having more hp so you would need more food or higher healing food so it would cost more and even then you probably won't be able to stay there as long as you previously could.

 

 

 

Instead of ignoring the cost of those shields lets look at it, 390 and 343 million, this is not a practical means to increase your chances of survival in certain places, for example your not going to take something that cost that much in to a pvp world.

 

 

 

As of this writing, I believe we are on RS14.2. :ugeek:

How do you work that out.

lol, have a look over past screenshots of the game 3 years ago and compare it to now, then do the same for a screenshot of runescape classic.

I claw specc'd a guy with 99 defence. 85 attack+piety+claws spec>99 defence and torag?

I claw specc'd a guy with 99 defence. 85 attack+piety+claws spec>99 defence and torag?

 

 

 

So one occurence is enough proof to make a statement?

I claw specc'd a guy with 99 defence. 85 attack+piety+claws spec>99 defence and torag?

 

 

 

So one occurence is enough proof to make a statement?

 

 

 

Apparently it is so. :?

I claw specc'd a guy with 99 defence. 85 attack+piety+claws spec>99 defence and torag?

 

 

 

So one occurence is enough proof to make a statement?

 

 

 

Apparently it is so. :?

 

 

 

I see... so does that mean visage drops are common for those people who manage to get them within a few kills? (of course not)

Defence only really seems to work against NPC's and not very well at that. Iv seen famous pkers with 1 defence and 99 attack and strength rip right through dharoks pkers while barley taking any damage at all, having 99 defence as well, it sometimes feels like my cape means nothing at all

I claw specc'd a guy with 99 defence. 85 attack+piety+claws spec>99 defence and torag?

 

 

 

So one occurence is enough proof to make a statement?

 

 

 

Apparently it is so. :?

 

 

 

I see... so does that mean visage drops are common for those people who manage to get them within a few kills? (of course not)

 

 

 

Sarcasm, sarcasm. ;)

I claw specc'd a guy with 99 defence. 85 attack+piety+claws spec>99 defence and torag?

 

 

 

So one occurence is enough proof to make a statement?

 

 

 

Hit 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 on a runer who's hitting straight 20s on you. Then multiply that by a couple hundred times. It's enough evidence for me.

I claw specc'd a guy with 99 defence. 85 attack+piety+claws spec>99 defence and torag?

 

 

 

So one occurence is enough proof to make a statement?

 

 

 

Hit 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 on a runer who's hitting straight 20s on you. Then multiply that by a couple hundred times. It's enough evidence for me.

 

 

 

Hyperbole?