Knowledge Base Finds...?

[Cheefoo]

I was searching the knowledge base, and found these.

 

 

 

 

So it seems magic defence now reduces damage, they're implying defence also reduces damage, and combat experience is somehow based off of the opponent's combat level now? I honestly don't know what else to say, but these could have a great impact on the game if they are true. I didn't notice anyone mention them before, however.

[Big_Stingman]

I knew the first and second, but the last one is news to me. I knew the XP you get in PvP was based off of your opponents combat level, but I didn't know that it was for PvM too..

[Cheefoo]

So can you confirm that defence and magic defence actually reduce damage now? Or do you mean you saw them before this update, and nothing changed?

[Toad]

It's all been widely known for a while now, that is a few years old and when fighting boss monsters you do get more experience I noticed it quite a while ago looking at my xp

[Cheefoo]

It's all been widely known for a while now, that is a few years old and when fighting boss monsters you do get more experience I noticed it quite a while ago looking at my xp

So what of the "damage reduction"?

[Howlin0001]

Yea the PVP combat was recently added to the combat guide (and any PVP guides). And it's true for PVM as well, but it's not really based on the monsters level.

[All_Is_Great]

I pretty sure you get a tiny bit more exp when fighting metal dragons.

[Danqazmlp]

One of the crew i know is currently researching the varying amounts of exp per hit from different monsters. Not sure how far along it is. The other two are well known, except the damage reduction, but I think that just means more 0's (old system)

[xSxqPowerx]

You get somewhere between 5 and 6 exp per damage on boss monsters.

[Mazhar]

Corp always gave 2.3 hp exp/damage compared to 1.3

[Myweponsg00d]

Been playing since classic and have somehow completely missed the fact that bosses give more exp.

[Baleout]

I pretty sure you get a tiny bit more exp when fighting metal dragons.

 

 

Monsters regenerate 1hp (10 now) every minute, so if it takes longer than a minute to kill something, you will seem to recieve a small amount of extra exp from doing extra damage.

[Howlin0001]

I pretty sure you get a tiny bit more exp when fighting metal dragons.

 

 

Monsters regenerate 1hp (10 now) every minute, so if it takes longer than a minute to kill something, you will seem to recieve a small amount of extra exp from doing extra damage.

No, from certain monsters you do get more xp and others you get less.

[Shepherdman7]

Corp always gave 2.3 hp exp/damage compared to 1.3

Seriously, I never knew this... What all classifies as a "boss npc"? Or is that what the crew member is researching...?

[Danqazmlp]

Been playing since classic and have somehow completely missed the fact that bosses give more exp.

 

Probably because when fighting a boss, measuring your exp is the least of your worries.

[muggiwhplar]

I don't trust the KB a lot of the time-- your defence level has nothing to do with your magic defence

[RUNESCAPEfantasy]

isnt your magic defence 80% mage level 20% defence level or somthing like that

[sees_all1]

Last night, playing FoG, I noticed that many of my opponents averaged 20's - 30's on me, even though their spells have a max hit of 12-16.

My magic level (I think?) is 87, and I was using the protect against magic, and mystic might against them. I also had GOP robes on...

 

Anyhow, this is one of the things that skews the combat triangle: passive magic defense. While in full rune (and having high magic), people in robes still splash on me.

 

I'll have to check and see if Greater Demons give more XP, if so, they may be the new thing I train on (with silverlight).

[Mazhar]

Corp always gave 2.3 hp exp/damage compared to 1.3

Seriously, I never knew this... What all classifies as a "boss npc"? Or is that what the crew member is researching...?

I'm pretty sure, unless I was hitting 75s with zs when I gained 100xp a hit

[Howlin0001]

Last night, playing FoG, I noticed that many of my opponents averaged 20's - 30's on me, even though their spells have a max hit of 12-16.

My magic level (I think?) is 87, and I was using the protect against magic, and mystic might against them. I also had GOP robes on...

 

Anyhow, this is one of the things that skews the combat triangle: passive magic defense. While in full rune (and having high magic), people in robes still splash on me.

 

I'll have to check and see if Greater Demons give more XP, if so, they may be the new thing I train on (with silverlight).

No they give the normal xp. Sorry :P

[Madouge]

I don't trust the KB a lot of the time-- your defence level has nothing to do with your magic defence

 

Don't mean to be rude or anything, but what is your source for this? I've seen this said before (along with similar things like the 20:80 ratio mentioned below your post) but only ever on these forums. I've seen it on Rune wiki too but they don't give a source.

[muggiwhplar]

I don't trust the KB a lot of the time-- your defence level has nothing to do with your magic defence

 

Don't mean to be rude or anything, but what is your source for this? I've seen this said before (along with similar things like the 20:80 ratio mentioned below your post) but only ever on these forums. I've seen it on Rune wiki too but they don't give a source.

 

Back before trade limits I was a mage staker and fought thousands of opponents... Several of which were 99 in all combat stats, and several were 1 defence but 99 mage. Regardless of their defence level, I'd always have the same accuracy against them. Sometimes I'd kill people w/ 1 defence with four casts, sometimes I'd kill maxed players with four casts. Sometimes I'd splash every spell against someone with 1 defence till they killed me, sometimes I'd splash every spell against a maxed person till they killed me. My opponents' defence levels offered no significant additional protection. Only their magic level and equipment mattered.

 

Also, I'd sometimes do mage vs melee stakes-- in which case I'd only fight people with lvl 85 magic or lower. Several of my opponents were maxed melees but with only like lvl 80 magic... As long as they were below about 85 magic, it was pretty much guaranteed that I'd win. Furthermore, I beat them with 4 casts pretty consistently.

[Hajutze]

This hardly proves anything.

[wioneo]

I don't trust the KB a lot of the time-- your defence level has nothing to do with your magic defence

 

Don't mean to be rude or anything, but what is your source for this? I've seen this said before (along with similar things like the 20:80 ratio mentioned below your post) but only ever on these forums. I've seen it on Rune wiki too but they don't give a source.

 

Back before trade limits I was a mage staker and fought thousands of opponents... Several of which were 99 in all combat stats, and several were 1 defence but 99 mage. Regardless of their defence level, I'd always have the same accuracy against them. Sometimes I'd kill people w/ 1 defence with four casts, sometimes I'd kill maxed players with four casts. Sometimes I'd splash every spell against someone with 1 defence till they killed me, sometimes I'd splash every spell against a maxed person till they killed me. My opponents' defence levels offered no significant additional protection. Only their magic level and equipment mattered.

 

Also, I'd sometimes do mage vs melee stakes-- in which case I'd only fight people with lvl 85 magic or lower. Several of my opponents were maxed melees but with only like lvl 80 magic... As long as they were below about 85 magic, it was pretty much guaranteed that I'd win. Furthermore, I beat them with 4 casts pretty consistently.

 

Of course your anecdotal evidence from observations several years in the past is much more trustworthy than a direct quote from the developer...

[Jondayla]

I don't trust the KB a lot of the time-- your defence level has nothing to do with your magic defence

 

Don't mean to be rude or anything, but what is your source for this? I've seen this said before (along with similar things like the 20:80 ratio mentioned below your post) but only ever on these forums. I've seen it on Rune wiki too but they don't give a source.

 

Back before trade limits I was a mage staker and fought thousands of opponents... Several of which were 99 in all combat stats, and several were 1 defence but 99 mage. Regardless of their defence level, I'd always have the same accuracy against them. Sometimes I'd kill people w/ 1 defence with four casts, sometimes I'd kill maxed players with four casts. Sometimes I'd splash every spell against someone with 1 defence till they killed me, sometimes I'd splash every spell against a maxed person till they killed me. My opponents' defence levels offered no significant additional protection. Only their magic level and equipment mattered.

 

Also, I'd sometimes do mage vs melee stakes-- in which case I'd only fight people with lvl 85 magic or lower. Several of my opponents were maxed melees but with only like lvl 80 magic... As long as they were below about 85 magic, it was pretty much guaranteed that I'd win. Furthermore, I beat them with 4 casts pretty consistently.

 

Of course your anecdotal evidence from observations several years in the past is much more trustworthy than a direct quote from the developer...

 

He's not forcing you to agree with him, he's just stating his opinion on the matter, which he has every right to believe is true...

 

I don't post here much, mainly because of all the little cliques there are going on.