Warrior ring

[Springyguy]

I'm a noob, i have 4 mill and am wondering if the 800k for the warrior ring is worth it as im going to be doing some slayer

[Sy_Accursed]

No.

 

Berserker is a good ring for melee, Warrior isn't

[Hegelstad]

Warrior is better than anything, but if its worth it is another case.

[Sy_Accursed]

Warrior is better than anything, but if its worth it is another case.

 

wtf?

 

At a grand total of +4 slash attack and +4 slash defence the ring is hardly worth it at all in any circumstance.

+ 4 strength from Berserker is pretty much always a better option.

[gremmy]

Get 100 MA rank, and imbue a diamond ring, and you'll have a ring that's better then seer's, archers, and warrior's together.

[Basmans]

On topic of warrior or zerker, queltar made a report and found out that warrior ring seemed to be better.

 

 

OT: With a low income warrior ring wouldn't be worth it imo.

[Sir_Squab]

Warrior is better than anything, but if its worth it is another case.

 

wtf?

 

At a grand total of +4 slash attack and +4 slash defence the ring is hardly worth it at all in any circumstance.

+ 4 strength from Berserker is pretty much always a better option.

 

Honestly, 4m for +4 str does not seem worth it to me. Not to mention the person who mentioned Q's post about the warrior ring being better. Frankly, I can't see either of these rings doing much - the MA rings are the first rings I've thought would actually make a difference in combat. I usually stick to things like the Ring of Life or Slayer Ring. (At least until I get around to ranking MA and getting one of those rings.)

[Grimy_Bunyip]

In dice roll DPS situations, DPS is calculated by the equation when accuracy falls below 50% (Average Damage per hit)*(Maximum Accuracy Roll - Resolution)/(Maximum Defense Roll)

resolution is defined to be a small number, so it can be ignored.

 

a 5% increase in accuracy could be slightly more than a 5% increase in average damage per hit IF resolution is nontrivial (which is only true if you're a noob)

If you assume otherwise, then a 5% increase in accuracy will never be more valuable than a 5% increase in damage.

 

the only other time a warrior ring would be useful, would be like

 

if you had +0 attack bonus

and +100 strength bonus

 

in such a case +4 strength bonus on a berserker ring might translate ROUGHLY to a 2-3% increase in damage?

where as 0 to 4 attack bonus would translate to much more than a 2-3% increase in maximum accuracy roll.

[Sir_Squab]

http://runescoop.com/html/rs_TheRuneScoopLaboratoryReport1.htm

 

I trust Qeltars experiment more then your math - in any case, both of the rings offer such small bonuses that they aren't worth it, imo. Especially 4m for the berserker. (I can think of better things to spend 4m on.)

 

But forget Warrior vs Berserker - I think both of us can agree with Gremmy. Get 100 MA rank and a diamond ring.

[GlowinRedM]

http://runescoop.com/html/rs_TheRuneScoopLaboratoryReport1.htm

 

I trust Qeltars experiment more then your math - in any case, both of the rings offer such small bonuses that they aren't worth it, imo. Especially 4m for the berserker. (I can think of better things to spend 4m on.)

 

But forget Warrior vs Berserker - I think both of us can agree with Gremmy. Get 100 MA rank and a diamond ring.

 

I agree with this. Theoretical math (as you don't know Jag's formulas for sure but have rough estimates) can never outdo an experiment

[Grimy_Bunyip]

http://runescoop.com/html/rs_TheRuneScoopLaboratoryReport1.htm

 

I trust Qeltars experiment more then your math - in any case, both of the rings offer such small bonuses that they aren't worth it, imo. Especially 4m for the berserker. (I can think of better things to spend 4m on.)

 

But forget Warrior vs Berserker - I think both of us can agree with Gremmy. Get 100 MA rank and a diamond ring.

 

I agree with this. Theoretical math (as you don't know Jag's formulas for sure but have rough estimates) can never outdo an experiment

experiments are good, but you have to realize his experiment was done with a stopwatch, which he started and stopped for EVERY kill.

you must realize how huge the potential for error is with an experiment like that.

his experiment said that the warrior ring was better than the berserker ring at living rocks, which have no defense.

Would you actually wear a warrior ring over a berserker ring at living rocks just because qeltar collected saying so?

His data is far too inaccurate to make any sound conclusions.

 

you should also consider the nature of the math before you jump to conclusions.

we KNOW runescape runs on a dice roll system, that's not actually up for question since it's been referred to by jagex.

 

thus we also KNOW that in a dice roll system, a 5% increase in average damage is the close to the same thing as a 5% increase in maximum accuracy roll.

 

The question is whether or not a +4 attack bonus and a +4 strength bonus both give equal percentage increases to average damage and maximum accuracy roll.

Assuming your stats and equipment bonuses are balanced, there's no reason to think otherwise.

[Quyneax]

Qeltar's tests are not accurate at all; in his latest test he fights black dragons for 20-30 mins and extrapolates that to kills/hr with a decimal. Also he kills 3.5 dragons (that's like 8%) less with a berserker ring, comparing to no ring. It seems that a margin of 5-10% difference is at least chance, and the difference of what ring you wear is much smaller than that.

[miracleman58]

The only think worth noting for Qeltars experiment was that Giant rock crabs are 60k xp/h in melee. Cool.