Is the Zaryte Bow the best at anything?

[amitoz]

Handcannon doesn't degrade, it goes from there, to not there.

Well let's just say it's not permanent.

[Kata_Phfract__the_slayer]

Handcannon doesn't degrade, it goes from there, to not there.

Well let's just say it's not permanent.

 

some people avoid chaotic just becouse it degrades and is thus "bad".

 

i can see zary beeing a weapon for people who dislike the hand cannon becouse it can exspolde.

so less powerfull, but more stable.

eg, tanking a boss for a long time? take 5 cannons or 1 bow?

[aspeeder]

Handcannon doesn't degrade, it goes from there, to not there.

Well let's just say it's not permanent.

The big problem is that you don't know when it won't be there, at least with the bow you'll know exactly how much longer you have until you need to repair it and can plan your trips accordingly. That and cost per shot seem to be the only advantage though.

[ghjkl]

Handcannon doesn't degrade, it goes from there, to not there.

Well let's just say it's not permanent.

 

some people avoid chaotic just becouse it degrades and is thus "bad".

 

i can see zary beeing a weapon for people who dislike the hand cannon becouse it can exspolde.

so less powerfull, but more stable.

eg, tanking a boss for a long time? take 5 cannons or 1 bow?

name 1 reason why zaryte bow is better than chaotic crossbow

[MstrMonopoly]

Handcannon doesn't degrade, it goes from there, to not there.

Well let's just say it's not permanent.

 

some people avoid chaotic just becouse it degrades and is thus "bad".

 

i can see zary beeing a weapon for people who dislike the hand cannon becouse it can exspolde.

so less powerfull, but more stable.

eg, tanking a boss for a long time? take 5 cannons or 1 bow?

name 1 reason why zaryte bow is better than chaotic crossbow

 

You are feeling lazy at TDs. That's the only thing I can think of.

[Dragonlordjl]

The ZB might be better at DKS since it has a longer distance than a CCB and has better ranged strength than what people usually use (because you don't have the looting problem). Also, it likely has a big protect value, whereas the CCB has a pathetically low protect value.

[SirIzenhime]

The ZB might be better at DKS since it has a longer distance than a CCB and has better ranged strength than what people usually use (because you don't have the looting problem). Also, it likely has a big protect value, whereas the CCB has a pathetically low protect value.

 

I'd rather keep a shield on. I take enough damage from supreme with a shield on, I don't need the spinolyps getting lucky because I loose about 60 range def.

It's not like ranging prime for extended times is even efficient there either. The most profitable way to DKs (at least for me), is just focus mostly on rex and supreme, so the shooting distance doesn't really make a difference considering i'll instantly switch to those two anyways when they spawn.

 

I can see it being nice for newer DKer's though....although anyone with access to a zaryte bow should probably have access to a decent way to DK.

[Uzamak1]

Jagex really needs to give us a 'bind' outside of Dung, on top of the 3 (4 with protect) item keeps...

 

Its not fun to die when you have in your backpack, a cmaul, a crapier, a ccbow and an Eagle-eye kite :'(

[Dragonlordjl]

Jagex really needs to give us a 'bind' outside of Dung, on top of the 3 (4 with protect) item keeps...

 

Its not fun to die when you have in your backpack, a cmaul, a crapier, a ccbow and an Eagle-eye kite :'(

Agree. This outdated "high alchemy value" system is [cabbage], especially since Jagex consistently undervalues new items that are really hard to obtain.

[Robert_R]

I'd use it at daganoth kings because I don't have chaotics :unsure:

[Dragonlordjl]

The biggest thing is that it's 80m+ and it's not the BEST for anything. That pricetag won't last long after free trade.

[Mike_Ike111]

The biggest thing is that it's 80m+ and it's not the BEST for anything. That pricetag won't last long after free trade.

 

To me the biggest thing is it is dropped by the hardest, most expensive boss to kill and it is a terrible bow. It has no special attack, it requires two hands and it costs a lot to use.

 

 

The only reason I would use this bow is if it did not require a recharge.

[Sir_Squab]

Eh, could be useful for people without chatic x bow. Then again, at the price it's at... If it was cheaper, i.e. not a nex drop, it might be useful.

 

I find it ironic how people say chaotic cross bow beats it everywhere except being lazy at TDs, when ironically people thought the Zartyre bow would make the chaotic crossbow obsolete and [bleep] anyone who bought one lol.

[SirIzenhime]

Eh, could be useful for people without chatic x bow. Then again, at the price it's at... If it was cheaper, i.e. not a nex drop, it might be useful.

 

I find it ironic how people say chaotic cross bow beats it everywhere except being lazy at TDs, when ironically people thought the Zartyre bow would make the chaotic crossbow obsolete and [bleep] anyone who bought one lol.

 

I called it's uselessness before it was even here (and so did many others)

[Articultural]

Jagex really needs to give us a 'bind' outside of Dung, on top of the 3 (4 with protect) item keeps...

 

Its not fun to die when you have in your backpack, a cmaul, a crapier, a ccbow and an Eagle-eye kite :'(

Agree. This outdated "high alchemy value" system is [cabbage], especially since Jagex consistently undervalues new items that are really hard to obtain.

 

Dying is supposed to be a penalty, you're supposed to try to avoid it.

[green9090]

Jagex really needs to give us a 'bind' outside of Dung, on top of the 3 (4 with protect) item keeps...

 

Its not fun to die when you have in your backpack, a cmaul, a crapier, a ccbow and an Eagle-eye kite :'(

Agree. This outdated "high alchemy value" system is [cabbage], especially since Jagex consistently undervalues new items that are really hard to obtain.

 

Dying is supposed to be a penalty, you're supposed to try to avoid it.

And that penalty is dealing with a bizarre and mostly arbitrary system allowing you to keep four items you may or may not want to keep?

 

The stated death penalty is you keep your best X items and lose everything else. Why does it need a further clause saying "and also by 'best' we mean whatever our mentally impaired staff decide items should be valued"?

 

I should also point out that, for a game whose servers cause so many deaths that aren't the fault of the player, the death penalty for PvP is pretty draconian. Other games don't tend to punish deaths so severely for the very reason that often it's not really something one could have avoided.

[Articultural]

Jagex really needs to give us a 'bind' outside of Dung, on top of the 3 (4 with protect) item keeps...

 

Its not fun to die when you have in your backpack, a cmaul, a crapier, a ccbow and an Eagle-eye kite :'(

Agree. This outdated "high alchemy value" system is [cabbage], especially since Jagex consistently undervalues new items that are really hard to obtain.

 

Dying is supposed to be a penalty, you're supposed to try to avoid it.

And that penalty is dealing with a bizarre and mostly arbitrary system allowing you to keep four items you may or may not want to keep?

 

The stated death penalty is you keep your best X items and lose everything else. Why does it need a further clause saying "and also by 'best' we mean whatever our mentally impaired staff decide items should be valued"?

 

I should also point out that, for a game whose servers cause so many deaths that aren't the fault of the player, the death penalty for PvP is pretty draconian. Other games don't tend to punish deaths so severely for the very reason that often it's not really something one could have avoided.

 

Jagex clearly state everywhere that's even slightly dangerous not to bring items that you're not prepared to lose. It's the fault of no one but yourself if you lose your items.

[Uzamak1]

Jagex really needs to give us a 'bind' outside of Dung, on top of the 3 (4 with protect) item keeps...

 

Its not fun to die when you have in your backpack, a cmaul, a crapier, a ccbow and an Eagle-eye kite :'(

Agree. This outdated "high alchemy value" system is [cabbage], especially since Jagex consistently undervalues new items that are really hard to obtain.

 

Dying is supposed to be a penalty, you're supposed to try to avoid it.

And that penalty is dealing with a bizarre and mostly arbitrary system allowing you to keep four items you may or may not want to keep?

 

The stated death penalty is you keep your best X items and lose everything else. Why does it need a further clause saying "and also by 'best' we mean whatever our mentally impaired staff decide items should be valued"?

 

I should also point out that, for a game whose servers cause so many deaths that aren't the fault of the player, the death penalty for PvP is pretty draconian. Other games don't tend to punish deaths so severely for the very reason that often it's not really something one could have avoided.

 

Jagex clearly state everywhere that's even slightly dangerous not to bring items that you're not prepared to lose. It's the fault of no one but yourself if you lose your items.

 

I don't like losing my ccbow and eagle-eye over claws and spectral as a direct result of me being in Asia?

 

Furthermore, what is the reasoning for me keeping 3 items based on its high alchemy value, when the prevailing market rate is nowhere near it?

 

All other non trade items have a low alchemy value, such as excalibur and darklight, so why should one chaotic item costing 200k tokens have more of a high alchemy value than another which cost me the time to gain 200k tokens?

 

In my opinion, it is an inconsistent method and fuels high level players to spend countless hours levelling dungeoneering, only for one item to be considered less valuable than another?

 

Heck, lets give a rapier higher alch value that a ccbow, even though both cost 200k tokens? hmms

 

All I ask for is consistency, either give all 200k token weapons/armour the same alch value, or set it to the same alch value as almost all other non-tradeables

 

How would you like it if a rune limbs alched for 3kgp (ie 1 rune bar), when rune platebodies alch for 48k? (5 rune bars)

 

ie 200k tokens should equal 200k tokens!

 

RAGE!!

[Articultural]

I don't like losing my ccbow and eagle-eye over claws and spectral as a direct result of me being in Asia?

 

Furthermore, what is the reasoning for me keeping 3 items based on its high alchemy value, when the prevailing market rate is nowhere near it?

 

All other non trade items have a low alchemy value, such as excalibur and darklight, so why should one chaotic item costing 200k tokens have more of a high alchemy value than another which cost me the time to gain 200k tokens?

 

In my opinion, it is an inconsistent method and fuels high level players to spend countless hours levelling dungeoneering, only for one item to be considered less valuable than another?

 

Heck, lets give a rapier higher alch value that a ccbow, even though both cost 200k tokens? hmms

 

All I ask for is consistency, either give all 200k token weapons/armour the same alch value, or set it to the same alch value as almost all other non-tradeables

 

How would you like it if a rune limbs alched for 3kgp (ie 1 rune bar), when rune platebodies alch for 48k? (5 rune bars)

 

ie 200k tokens should equal 200k tokens!

 

RAGE!!

 

Runite limbs alch for 9k and rune platebodies alch for 39k, despite 39k/5 being 7.8k.

 

The price of items on death was determined by Jagex in order to retain risk of item loss. If you could choose which items to keep, using items like Void or Armadyl would be a much safer process, resulting in prices of said items dropping and/or the prices of items dropped where they are used. The kept-on-death values make up a very intricate system, which could be extensively abused if Jagex were to enable us to keep whichever three/four items we choose. While they might have made some errors in judging the usefulness of certain items, it's nowhere near as anarchaic as it would be if players were left to control the protection value of their items.

 

It could even cause mass price fluctuations with sets of armour similar to Barrows, people PKing in Dharok's would just set the helm to protect causing its price to drop and prices of whatever is currently the cheapest to rise, the sheer potential damage it could cause to the price of commonly used items could result in economic turmoil.

 

Despite that though, you are fully aware of what you are risking when you enter a dangerous area. The loss of your items in dangerous area, after you have been warned multiple times not to take items you aren't willing to lose, is the fault of no one/nothing but yourself.

[Soma2035]

Runite limbs alch for 9k and rune platebodies alch for 39k, despite 39k/5 being 7.8k.

 

The price of items on death was determined by Jagex in order to retain risk of item loss. If you could choose which items to keep, using items like Void or Armadyl would be a much safer process, resulting in prices of said items dropping and/or the prices of items dropped where they are used. The kept-on-death values make up a very intricate system, which could be extensively abused if Jagex were to enable us to keep whichever three/four items we choose. While they might have made some errors in judging the usefulness of certain items, it's nowhere near as anarchaic as it would be if players were left to control the protection value of their items.

 

It could even cause mass price fluctuations with sets of armour similar to Barrows, people PKing in Dharok's would just set the helm to protect causing its price to drop and prices of whatever is currently the cheapest to rise, the sheer potential damage it could cause to the price of commonly used items could result in economic turmoil.

 

Despite that though, you are fully aware of what you are risking when you enter a dangerous area. The loss of your items in dangerous area, after you have been warned multiple times not to take items you aren't willing to lose, is the fault of no one/nothing but yourself.

 

Why protect Bandos but not Armadyl?

 

Why allow people to protect Berserker Rings or Dragon Claws over everything else, but not Spirit Shields or Chaotics?

[aspeeder]

I don't like losing my ccbow and eagle-eye over claws and spectral as a direct result of me being in Asia?

 

Furthermore, what is the reasoning for me keeping 3 items based on its high alchemy value, when the prevailing market rate is nowhere near it?

 

All other non trade items have a low alchemy value, such as excalibur and darklight, so why should one chaotic item costing 200k tokens have more of a high alchemy value than another which cost me the time to gain 200k tokens?

 

In my opinion, it is an inconsistent method and fuels high level players to spend countless hours levelling dungeoneering, only for one item to be considered less valuable than another?

 

Heck, lets give a rapier higher alch value that a ccbow, even though both cost 200k tokens? hmms

 

All I ask for is consistency, either give all 200k token weapons/armour the same alch value, or set it to the same alch value as almost all other non-tradeables

 

How would you like it if a rune limbs alched for 3kgp (ie 1 rune bar), when rune platebodies alch for 48k? (5 rune bars)

 

ie 200k tokens should equal 200k tokens!

 

RAGE!!

 

Runite limbs alch for 9k and rune platebodies alch for 39k, despite 39k/5 being 7.8k.

 

The price of items on death was determined by Jagex in order to retain risk of item loss. If you could choose which items to keep, using items like Void or Armadyl would be a much safer process, resulting in prices of said items dropping and/or the prices of items dropped where they are used. The kept-on-death values make up a very intricate system, which could be extensively abused if Jagex were to enable us to keep whichever three/four items we choose. While they might have made some errors in judging the usefulness of certain items, it's nowhere near as anarchaic as it would be if players were left to control the protection value of their items.

 

Players manually choosing the items they want saved isn't the only choice here, they could also set up the system to be based on market prices so things like void would still have some risk attached to their use.

 

It could even cause mass price fluctuations with sets of armour similar to Barrows, people PKing in Dharok's would just set the helm to protect causing its price to drop and prices of whatever is currently the cheapest to rise, the sheer potential damage it could cause to the price of commonly used items could result in economic turmoil.

 

Everything would stabilize eventually though, and I doubt it would cause long lasting economic harm.

 

Despite that though, you are fully aware of what you are risking when you enter a dangerous area. The loss of your items in dangerous area, after you have been warned multiple times not to take items you aren't willing to lose, is the fault of no one/nothing but yourself.

 

Or the server, or your pc, or the weather, or a ddos attack; I do agree you should know the price of death but always blaming the dead isn't the best position to take.

[Articultural]

The price of items on death was determined by Jagex in order to retain risk of item loss. If you could choose which items to keep, using items like Void or Armadyl would be a much safer process, resulting in prices of said items dropping and/or the prices of items dropped where they are used. The kept-on-death values make up a very intricate system, which could be extensively abused if Jagex were to enable us to keep whichever three/four items we choose. While they might have made some errors in judging the usefulness of certain items, it's nowhere near as anarchaic as it would be if players were left to control the protection value of their items.

 

Players manually choosing the items they want saved isn't the only choice here, they could also set up the system to be based on market prices so things like void would still have some risk attached to their use.

 

If it was based on the market price, it would cause even more problems as the items price on death could fluctate while you're using them, causing you to suddenly keep different items than you thought you would, mid-way through your PKing/boss/other dangerous activity trip.

 

It could even cause mass price fluctuations with sets of armour similar to Barrows, people PKing in Dharok's would just set the helm to protect causing its price to drop and prices of whatever is currently the cheapest to rise, the sheer potential damage it could cause to the price of commonly used items could result in economic turmoil.

 

Everything would stabilize eventually though, and I doubt it would cause long lasting economic harm.

 

Everything would stabilise eventually, but it could have drastic effects on profits made from places like Barrows or TDs in the short-term, which could heavily effect the profit rate of certain bosses, effecting their popularity. Eventually it could even push Jagex to intefer with the boss/bosses in question's drops, tweaking drop rates or adding additional drops, if the market was taking too long to stabilise.

 

While this isn't technically a problem, it could cause a massive shift in the rarity of higher end gear, causing it either to be too far out of reach for the average player to afford, or so cheap that it makes other gear redundant and Jagex is pressured into rushing out higher-levelled gear when the game isn't ready for it. Albeit extreme examples, they do expose some of the potential threats of giving players the ability to effectively muck around with the economy.

 

Despite that though, you are fully aware of what you are risking when you enter a dangerous area. The loss of your items in dangerous area, after you have been warned multiple times not to take items you aren't willing to lose, is the fault of no one/nothing but yourself.

 

Or the server, or your pc, or the weather, or a ddos attack; I do agree you should know the price of death but always blaming the dead isn't the best position to take.

 

I didn't mean that the death was the fault of the player, merely that (s)he should have known the risk. No matter how confident you are, you always have a chance of losing your items and you should always be prepared for that eventuality if it happens, rather than trying to shift the blame onto someone else. If I was PKing in a phat and disconnected and lost it, people would say it was my fault for risking such an expensive item in PvP, the same goes with any other item in any other dangerous activity.

[Mike_Ike111]

I didn't mean that the death was the fault of the player, merely that (s)he should have known the risk. No matter how confident you are, you always have a chance of losing your items and you should always be prepared for that eventuality if it happens, rather than trying to shift the blame onto someone else. If I was PKing in a phat and disconnected and lost it, people would say it was my fault for risking such an expensive item in PvP, the same goes with any other item in any other dangerous activity.

 

By your logic I should either always have a backup 200m to buy back my items, always welfare everywhere and never take anything good, or never go anywhere dangerous.

 

The risks of going somewhere dangerous is death and losing your items. At one point the high alch value on death actually worked because the best items were rune and the most you would die with is 50k. However, times have changed and the system should change as well.

[aspeeder]

The price of items on death was determined by Jagex in order to retain risk of item loss. If you could choose which items to keep, using items like Void or Armadyl would be a much safer process, resulting in prices of said items dropping and/or the prices of items dropped where they are used. The kept-on-death values make up a very intricate system, which could be extensively abused if Jagex were to enable us to keep whichever three/four items we choose. While they might have made some errors in judging the usefulness of certain items, it's nowhere near as anarchaic as it would be if players were left to control the protection value of their items.

 

Players manually choosing the items they want saved isn't the only choice here, they could also set up the system to be based on market prices so things like void would still have some risk attached to their use.

 

If it was based on the market price, it would cause even more problems as the items price on death could fluctate while you're using them, causing you to suddenly keep different items than you thought you would, mid-way through your PKing/boss/other dangerous activity trip.

 

I'd be surprised if two items were very close to the same price but one was kept on death and another wasn't. Besides then you'd basically still retain the same amount of wealth just different items which, unless it's an untradable or is hard to obtain (Which should diminish with free trade), usually wouldn't cause undue annoyance.

 

It could even cause mass price fluctuations with sets of armour similar to Barrows, people PKing in Dharok's would just set the helm to protect causing its price to drop and prices of whatever is currently the cheapest to rise, the sheer potential damage it could cause to the price of commonly used items could result in economic turmoil.

 

Everything would stabilize eventually though, and I doubt it would cause long lasting economic harm.

 

Everything would stabilise eventually, but it could have drastic effects on profits made from places like Barrows or TDs in the short-term, which could heavily effect the profit rate of certain bosses, effecting their popularity. Eventually it could even push Jagex to intefer with the boss/bosses in question's drops, tweaking drop rates or adding additional drops, if the market was taking too long to stabilise.

 

I could see things like Barrows helms crashing, but at the same time some other pieces of equipment would rise since those were lost so it'd actually be roughly equivalent. And TD's are one of the top tier money makers right now even with claws decreasing like they have been, so another crash would have to be extreme for their popularity to decrease noticeably. I don't exactly know what you are implying with "tweaking", and thus far JaGeX has only increased drop rates, never decreased them, if that affects your response.

 

While this isn't technically a problem, it could cause a massive shift in the rarity of higher end gear, causing it either to be too far out of reach for the average player to afford, or so cheap that it makes other gear redundant and Jagex is pressured into rushing out higher-levelled gear when the game isn't ready for it. Albeit extreme examples, they do expose some of the potential threats of giving players the ability to effectively muck around with the economy.

 

It wouldn't be redundant if the stats are markedly different and are useful for varying purposes. I can see what you're saying about price crashes/out of reach armor leading to stagnation and wanting more things to aim for but I just honestly don't see that happening with free trade.

 

Despite that though, you are fully aware of what you are risking when you enter a dangerous area. The loss of your items in dangerous area, after you have been warned multiple times not to take items you aren't willing to lose, is the fault of no one/nothing but yourself.

 

Or the server, or your pc, or the weather, or a ddos attack; I do agree you should know the price of death but always blaming the dead isn't the best position to take.

 

I didn't mean that the death was the fault of the player, merely that (s)he should have known the risk. No matter how confident you are, you always have a chance of losing your items and you should always be prepared for that eventuality if it happens, rather than trying to shift the blame onto someone else. If I was PKing in a phat and disconnected and lost it, people would say it was my fault for risking such an expensive item in PvP, the same goes with any other item in any other dangerous activity.

 

The thing is there's expensive items, like phats and rares, that players wear just to show off wealth, and then there is expensive equipment that actually gives you an advantage in combat. There are also certain strategies that only involve risk if you're lagged out somehow, like say using chaotic rapier+ddef at metal dragons with super antifires, a low risk activity unless something unexpected happens. I just believe that there are just some things that should carry less risk than others, and if you don't well I do believe we have reached an impass :P

I also agree with the quote above, I just didn't know how to phrase it.

[Logdotzip]

This thread got totally derailed.

 

 

OT though it seems there Zaryte bow is capable of being a Jack of all trades but a master of none. It has it's potential uses everywhere but as of now it doesn't shine anywhere.