Best Attack Method

[beastlyb9]

Idk if this is obvious or if its been talked about but what attack method gives you the most DPS for slayer/pvm?

[LitterBug]

Idk if this is obvious or if its been talked about but what attack method gives you the most DPS for slayer/pvm?

 

str (i.e an aggressive stance where possible)

[beastlyb9]

So aggressive will always beat out accurate?

[Cacmypants]

Depends what you're fighting, most of the time you will have enough accuracy to reliably hit through the def of the target regardless of style, so might as well go aggressive if you're not training attack.

[homer205]

I believe it's whenever your accuracy is above 50% then 1 strength bonus will give more benefit than 1 attack bonus.

[Ddude42]

So the aggressive stance gives an invisible +1 strength boost? Where did you find that information, out of curiosity.

[ghjkl]

it's +3

[Aiel]

as stated, its +3, and from playing classic and empirical testing.

[Kata_Phfract__the_slayer]

when it comes to training or slayer, monster defence is barely worth nothing.

so a +3 boost in attack will be of less use then a +3 boost in strength.

 

its a different story for bosses, the extra accuracy might be worth it, or even going on defenceive might be better.

 

p.s. controlled adds 1 to attack, str and defence.

[SirIzenhime]

So the aggressive stance gives an invisible +1 strength boost? Where did you find that information, out of curiosity.

 

It gives +3, just like accurate stance gives +3 atk, and defensive gives +3 def

The information was gotten from Jagex themselves, and a lot of testing done by players in the early years of this game.

[Ddude42]

So the aggressive stance gives an invisible +1 strength boost? Where did you find that information, out of curiosity.

 

It gives +3, just like accurate stance gives +3 atk, and defensive gives +3 def

The information was gotten from Jagex themselves, and a lot of testing done by players in the early years of this game.

 

So if I understand this correctly, it would be most efficient after you've maxed your melee skills to use the aggressive stance for low defence monsters, and accurate stance for high defence monsters?

[SirIzenhime]

There is no monster in the game where a +3 attack boost will be better then a +3 strength boost at that level.

 

But technically...yes.

[Quyneax]

If a monster has very very high defence and very very low health, it may be worth using accurate. You're talking corp at 50 lp here though.

[Cheat]

It seems to have been concluded here that aggressive is always better? Yet, in every post I've seen about staking accurate is recommended. Is PvP the exception to the rule or is 99 defence really that huge?

[Zaaps1]

Probably not, considering most monsters in Daemonhiem have higher than 99 defense, assuming they are calculated from the same combat level formula.

[Wkw]

If you HIT over half the time that you attack, aggressive is the stance to be in, as it raises your str lvl, which in turn raises your average damage per hit, which ups your dps

[Articultural]

It seems to have been concluded here that aggressive is always better? Yet, in every post I've seen about staking accurate is recommended. Is PvP the exception to the rule or is 99 defence really that huge?

 

When boxing you tend to miss a lot more than when fighting low level Slayer monsters with Turmoil, Overloads, a Slayer Helmet and a Chaotic rapier.

[Powerfrog]

This formula takes a huge assumption that i have never seen anyone prove or disprove that attack level directly equates to % chance of hitting on a balanced rate. If you know this to be false please show me proof and make me feel silly.

 

It's actually a very simple calculation that people seem to over complicate.

 

Strength is always better or equal to accuracy. Strength is only better if your accuracy is very high.

 

Defensive.

99 str = 495 max hit

99 attack = 49.5% of hitting

Average hit is 245

 

Accurate.

102 str = 510 max hit

99 attack = 49.5% of hitting

Average hit is 252.4

 

Aggressive.

99 str = 495 max hit

102 str = 51% of hitting

Average hit is 252.4

 

These are of course made up numbers but this is how it works. Strength is more efficient as you can always get lucky accuracy wise, but you'll never hit over your max possible hit.

 

I first discovered this formula when working out which is the better dungeoneering ring, tactician or berseker, with a mighty 20% difference either way. And that showed strength more efficient if your accuracy was over 83% or otherwise equal. I'm too lazy to work out the accuracy % you need before strength is actually better in this case, but with a 3 level difference it will be roughly 98%...

 

So the safest option is to just keep strength on at all times. Not only is it equal/better... Having a slightly higher max hit is just more appealing :D

 

Original working out of the dungeoneering rings, incase anyone is interested.

Actually, in theory, strength boost and accuracy boost are the exact same unless your accuracy is over 83%.

 

Lets say you have a 50% to hit with an average hit of 300.

meaning your average attack will hit 150 damage.

20% more accuracy = 60% to hit a 300. Totals as average attack = 180.

20% more strength = 20% of 300 + 300... 360. 50% to hit 360, average attack = 180.

 

With 40% to hit an average of 300.

average attack will be 120 damage

20% more accuracy = 48% to hit a 300. Totals as average attack = 144

20% more strength = 20% of 300 + 300... 360. 40% to hit 360, average attack = 144

 

60% to hit an average of 300.

Average hit will be 180 damage

20% more accuracy = 72% to hit a 300. Totals as average attack = 216

20% more strength = 20% of 300 + 300... 360. 60% to hit 360, average attack = 216

 

All the same, huh?.. Lets try it with 90% accuracy.

 

90% to hit average of 300.

Average hit is 270.

20% more accuracy = 108%... But that's impossible, so lets call it 100%(Also impossible, but it'll be close.) Total average attack = 300

20% more strength = 20% of 300 + 300... 360. 90% to hit 360 = 324

 

So yeah. Strength is better, only if you're already very accurate.

 

[Quyneax]

Erm that's not correct. If you are curious how it works, try these calculators by Grimy.

[AfkScape]

Defensive is good when you're doing non-combat things where you take damage though, like abyss/ZMI runecrafting, although it's a fairly small difference

[IHasChicken]

The only boss where accurate MAY be better than aggressive is Nex.

 

But there are so many other things to consider with Nex (switching your rings, and other gear as well (void/bandos switches for claw specs,) and actually being the right distance away from Nex to minimise damage as well as avoiding all of her special attacks,) that such a small bonus is negligible. Not to mention that the default for the rapid attack style for firing your bolts also puts your claws (when you do whip them out) on aggressive anyway, so it's not really worth wasting the time and effort switching your claws to accurate every time you use them unless you are like Jesus with your switching skills and use of F-keys.

 

A general rule would be that agressive stance trumps accurate stance everywhere. This may deviate according to your personal stats, but for a maxed player, this statement holds true everywhere.

[Arthu]

How often do you hit when boxing maxed vs maxed? I mean, is accurate or aggressive better?

[Quyneax]

Well, accurate vs defensive means two equal rolls of 112 versus eachother, and defence wins a tie. So that gives you 112*112 possible combinations of rolls, of which 112 are even (miss) and the rest is split evenly, so 6216/12544 or 49,55% accuracy.