Dragon bones worth buying now?

[Howlin0001]

At the moment Dragon bones are falling and have mostly been falling for a few months. Is it time to buy some dragon bones or are they going to fall for much longer?

[Kimberly]

I'd imagine the only thing that would change the price of it would be changes in training methods or a decrease in bots. And any anti-botting measures would not be a pre-announced sort of thing, so it's impossible to use that as an indicator. Training methods, there have been none announced. RuneFest might change that, but it's unlikely considering the Urn update not too long ago. If things stay the same, they'll probably stop and level off soon, but that's a risky investment nonetheless.

 

IDKMYBFFJILL.

[fatherdeath]

The price gap between infernal and dbones are helping bring them down. Infernals are right around 3k. I imagine they'll continue to drop. Still a great time to buy if you have the money to level though.

[Howlin0001]

Can you alter/etco ashes?

[BabyPunchers]

Yes you can :)

[Amonitas]

Ectoing ashes is much faster. You don't need to grind them so yes.

[Sy_Accursed]

Yeah dbone value dropping cause more people cottoning onto infernal ashes being better gp:xp ratio with barely any extra time.

For a while you could buy 1.5x as much prayer xp in infernal ashes as u culd in dbones for same money and due to how close they are in xp value it barely impacts time spent doing it.

 

Plus as mentioned if u can bear the extra time they r very easy to ecto; personally I still altar them

[fatherdeath]

Ectoing ashes is much faster. You don't need to grind them so yes.

 

 

Still much slower than altaring. Ashes are roughly 2gp/xp cheaper than dbones, but 48k xp/hr slower. Thank Grimy: https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AldEhLOK6ejJdE9tVXlKb1VqdTdPS0FDMFZpU1pST0E#gid=0

[Howlin0001]

Yes you can :)

Sweet thanks. I think I'll use infernal ashes then... well I'll see how it goes in a few days.

[gspbeetle]

Income/hour does matter, you have to spend the time to make the money to start your training with.

 

I'd say,

[(income/hr) + (gp/hr)] / (exp/hr) = gp/exp

[Sy_Accursed]

Income/hour does matter, you have to spend the time to make the money to start your training with.

 

I'd say,

[(income/hr) + (gp/hr)] / (exp/hr) = gp/exp

 

I'd say that's a rather nonsense sum and over complicates matters because you are turning gp:xp into an expression of how much gp you need to earn per xp to break even. But gp:xp is meant to express how many gp it costs per xp.

 

gp:xp = cost of 1/xp for 1 (+ any resale value where applicable)

xp:hr self explainatory

gp:hr = gp:xp*xp:hr

 

Then you simply compare gp:hr to your income:hr

The more economically efficient the method the closer gp:hr is to 1/2 or less of income:hr

[LitterBug]

Income/hour does matter, you have to spend the time to make the money to start your training with.

 

I'd say,

[(income/hr) + (gp/hr)] / (exp/hr) = gp/exp

 

I'd say that's a rather nonsense sum and over complicates matters because you are turning gp:xp into an expression of how much gp you need to earn per xp to break even. But gp:xp is meant to express how many gp it costs per xp.

 

gp:xp = cost of 1/xp for 1 (+ any resale value where applicable)

xp:hr self explainatory

gp:hr = gp:xp*xp:hr

 

Then you simply compare gp:hr to your income:hr

The more economically efficient the method the closer gp:hr is to 1/2 or less of income:hr

 

is this a joke?

gp:hr is just how much you spend in an hour.

when comparing across multiple different data sets - you're failing to include for the exp difference among the two items being compared.

 

I.e. If you're using Ourg bones compared to Frost Dragon bones

Ourg bones cost more then Frost Dragon bones and give less exp.

However, by your method - altaring Ourg bone is more efficient then Frost Dragon bones.

 

I smell something fishy...

talk about nonsense math.

[Tipsi]

hi, i think its a good time to buy. Look at the graph for sharks.

 

look at the graphs for rocktail.

 

now look at graph for dragon bones

look at graph for frost dragon bones.

 

Now consider the very high possibilty of bots 'moving on'

[LitterBug]

hi, i think its a good time to buy. Look at the graph for sharks.

 

look at the graphs for rocktail.

 

now look at graph for dragon bones

look at graph for frost dragon bones.

 

Now consider the very high possibilty of bots 'moving on'

 

Not to be trifling, but they moved on because there is better gp/hr to be found.

Sharks/Rocktails won't ever give much gp/hr.

 

However, I highly doubt anything will beat frost dragons in income/hr.

But then again, I never though that people would be able to bot so efficiently with cannons/antidragons/etc D:

[Sy_Accursed]

Income/hour does matter, you have to spend the time to make the money to start your training with.

 

I'd say,

[(income/hr) + (gp/hr)] / (exp/hr) = gp/exp

 

I'd say that's a rather nonsense sum and over complicates matters because you are turning gp:xp into an expression of how much gp you need to earn per xp to break even. But gp:xp is meant to express how many gp it costs per xp.

 

gp:xp = cost of 1/xp for 1 (+ any resale value where applicable)

xp:hr self explainatory

gp:hr = gp:xp*xp:hr

 

Then you simply compare gp:hr to your income:hr

The more economically efficient the method the closer gp:hr is to 1/2 or less of income:hr

 

is this a joke?

gp:hr is just how much you spend in an hour.

when comparing across multiple different data sets - you're failing to include for the exp difference among the two items being compared.

 

I.e. If you're using Ourg bones compared to Frost Dragon bones

Ourg bones cost more then Frost Dragon bones and give less exp.

However, by your method - altaring Ourg bone is more efficient then Frost Dragon bones.

 

I smell something fishy...

talk about nonsense math.

 

gp:xp * xp:hr = gp:hr does give how much u spend an hour.

If it costs 2gp per xp and u get 10xp an hour, you spend 20gp an hour.

 

The rest I don't see wtf your on about. Yes items each vary; but where in anything I wrote does it apply gp:xp, gp:hr or xp:hr are some magic value that includes two different methods.

ourg and frost both have their own separate xp:gp xp:hr and gp:hr amounts

 

Also wtf

I did say ECONOMICALLY efficient for a reason; namely that that number does only show you how efficient it is in terms of cost/profit; but not necessarily in terms of time, though it often can be.

But that aside your apparent outcome is completely wrong:

If ourg cost more for less xp. gp:xp is higher and xp:hr is lower. Lets say 300gp:xp 100xp:hr

Then frosts have say 100gp:xp at 200xp:hr because they are cheaper and give more xp per bone.

ourgs are 3k:hr (300gp*100xp)

frosts are 2k:hr

 

I said closer gp:hr is to 1/2 or less than income:hr the more economically efficient it is.

So frosts come out more economically efficient, even if you plug in real numbers frosts would come out better because 2k is always gonna closer to 1/2 or less of income than 3k.

The inference being: ourgs cost 3k an hour so if you make 6k an hour ur break even.

frosts cost 2k an hour so 4k an hour is needed to break even.

Assuming 1 hour doing bones, 1 hour money making.

[LitterBug]

Income/hour does matter, you have to spend the time to make the money to start your training with.

 

I'd say,

[(income/hr) + (gp/hr)] / (exp/hr) = gp/exp

 

I'd say that's a rather nonsense sum and over complicates matters because you are turning gp:xp into an expression of how much gp you need to earn per xp to break even. But gp:xp is meant to express how many gp it costs per xp.

 

gp:xp = cost of 1/xp for 1 (+ any resale value where applicable)

xp:hr self explainatory

gp:hr = gp:xp*xp:hr

 

Then you simply compare gp:hr to your income:hr

The more economically efficient the method the closer gp:hr is to 1/2 or less of income:hr

 

is this a joke?

gp:hr is just how much you spend in an hour.

when comparing across multiple different data sets - you're failing to include for the exp difference among the two items being compared.

 

I.e. If you're using Ourg bones compared to Frost Dragon bones

Ourg bones cost more then Frost Dragon bones and give less exp.

However, by your method - altaring Ourg bone is more efficient then Frost Dragon bones.

 

I smell something fishy...

talk about nonsense math.

 

gp:xp * xp:hr = gp:hr does give how much u spend an hour.

If it costs 2gp per xp and u get 10xp an hour, you spend 20gp an hour.

 

The rest I don't see wtf your on about. Yes items each vary; but where in anything I wrote does it apply gp:xp, gp:hr or xp:hr are some magic value that includes two different methods.

ourg and frost both have their own separate xp:gp xp:hr and gp:hr amounts

 

Also wtf

I did say ECONOMICALLY efficient for a reason; namely that that number does only show you how efficient it is in terms of cost/profit; but not necessarily in terms of time, though it often can be.

But that aside your apparent outcome is completely wrong:

If ourg cost more for less xp. gp:xp is higher and xp:hr is lower. Lets say 300gp:xp 100xp:hr

Then frosts have say 100gp:xp at 200xp:hr because they are cheaper and give more xp per bone.

ourgs are 3k:hr (300gp*100xp)

frosts are 2k:hr

 

I said closer gp:hr is to 1/2 or less than income:hr the more economically efficient it is.

So frosts come out more economically efficient, even if you plug in real numbers frosts would come out better because 2k is always gonna closer to 1/2 or less of income than 3k.

The inference being: ourgs cost 3k an hour so if you make 6k an hour ur break even.

frosts cost 2k an hour so 4k an hour is needed to break even.

Assuming 1 hour doing bones, 1 hour money making.

 

Your post makes no sense. I really cannot understand what you're trying to ellicit.

 

Let's look at a fundamental flaw in your problem.

Say item A is 300 gp/exp and 100 exp/hr

Say item B is 100 gp/exp and 300 exp/hr.

 

Using your weird math, they're equally efficient, however item B is CLEARLY MORE EFFICIENT then A.

You just happened to use weird numbers and it came out nicely, but in general - your formula doesn't really give you any good information.

 

No offense, but you tend to post math/formula/whatnot in threads and it's just wrong most of the time.

Honestly, think about what you're doing and then test out your formula before posting it.

You just end up confusing more and more people.

[Sy_Accursed]

Like I said:

I put ECONOMICALLY efficient for a reason.

The example you pick out just illustrates the point, the economic efficiency isn't always in-line with other measures of efficiency.

 

Perhaps it would be a more concise explanation to label it financially economic opposed to economically, but they drive at the same meaning anyway.

And it's hardly a formula, it was just basic definitions of what gp:xp, xp:hr and gp:hr ratios are derived from and pointed out that fact that financial efficiency/costs/profits of a method by comparing the gp:hr to your income:hour.

[Nifflin]

Litterbug is right. Sy never actually understood efficiency or opportunity cost, his forumlas are nonsense.

 

To the OP, they are probably not worth buying. You can make more by flipping then investing.

[Sy_Accursed]

So working out how much gp something costs per xp then multiplying tht by xp it gains in the hour doesn't give cost per hour?

Because of course something tht costs 1gp per xp and makes 100xp an hour doesnt cost 100gp an hour; thats just nonsense!

 

Same way its utterly stupid to assume if you earn $5 an hour (post tax) that by multiplying it by the number of hours you work in a day, lets say 10 to get $50, accurately calculates what you have earned that day in wages.

[Nifflin]

Cost per hour is only one part of determining how efficient something is. The other parts are exp per hour and a persons income.

[Sy_Accursed]

Which is why I did highlight several times I said it showed economic/financial efficiency in relation to your income. I never said it showed general efficiency that's an entirely different ball park.

[Nifflin]

There aren't different types of efficiency, don't confuse yourself.

[Sy_Accursed]

There are though because you can be efficient in a variety of different aspects of something; and its statistically unlikely that 1 method is gonna be the most efficient in each individual aspect

You can be time efficient while being inefficient in costs or vice versa.

 

To use a real-life example - shelf stacking in a supermarket in terms of time.

The most efficient way to stack the shelf would obviously be working along it in order.

The most efficient way to load the cart to go from stockroom > shop floor would be to stack it neatly and based on weight etc.

The most efficient way to collect stock from the stock room is going to be taking whats on hand first.

So collecting stock the most efficient way wouldnt result in an efficient loaded cart or enable efficiently stacking the shelves. etc.

The overall efficiency is by doing all 3 parts slightly less efficiently individually to make the entire task more efficient.

 

Or an even better example in terms of driving routes:

Most efficient distance wise is to go the shortest way (and usually most efficient cost wise too but tht can vary)

The most efficient timewise is to aim for faster roads.

The most efficient route overall will generally be somewhere inbetween; not taking the shortest route but not diverting too far for faster roads so you don't drive further than u really need too, for longer than you need too or spend more on petrol than you need too.

 

Efficiency in general is the method that best balances all aspects for the best overall outcome.

[Nifflin]

There are though because you can be efficient in a variety of different aspects of something; and its statistically unlikely that 1 method is gonna be the most efficient in each individual aspect

You can be time efficient while being inefficient in costs or vice versa.

 

 

You're confusing cost effectiveness with efficiency.

[Sy_Accursed]

Cost effectiveness is the same as cost efficiency.

I'm not remotely suggesting cost efficiency = overall efficiency.

Obvious examples is big bones are technically very cost efficient; but looking at overall efficiency they are not.

 

All I was saying is comparing gp:hr to your income does show cost efficiency or cost effectiveness.