Shark Cooking

[Greedom1]

Just a note: the fire you cook on plays a role as well. If I cook on willows or maples, I'm going to burn more sharks (within my cooking level!) than I would have had I used yew fires. As far as comparisons to ranges, I've found that I burn more on the catherby range than on the rogue's den fire. (The lumby range is slightly better, but too far from a bank to be practical.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I apologize that I don't have numbers or stats to back my points up, but look at it this way: if you're a mid-80's lvl cooker, it may be worth it to you to use a few hundred or so yew logs if they'll keep you from burning as many sharks on say a willow or maple log. (This is especially useful if you plan on cooking at the fish guild and trading cooked for raws.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, to sum up:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Fastest cooking is obviously at rogue's den

 

 

 

-If you're mid 80's (and cooking in fish guild), use yew logs.

 

 

 

-Also, I'm always trading cooked for raw sharks, just let me know. (250 plus at a time please)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, happy cooking and runescaping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me add, that if you're cooking anything but sharks, you should probably use maples or willows, as the cost of the yew log fire is only really effective for sharks.

[NukeMarine]

I tested out Range fires and camp fires (at Rogue's Den). I even tested out the stupid chef hat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I noticed NO difference in burn rates. Nada. Just cook at rogue's den or at Fight Pits bank. Use cooking gaunts if you have them.

[Miserikordi]

Just a note: the fire you cook on plays a role as well. If I cook on willows or maples, I'm going to burn more sharks (within my cooking level!) than I would have had I used yew fires. As far as comparisons to ranges, I've found that I burn more on the catherby range than on the rogue's den fire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've noticed that as well. It seems like whenever I cook at the Catherby range I burn more sharks than if I cook elsewhere....

[Greedom1]

just wanted to let you know that i'm testing out my theory about yew fires vs. the rogue's den fire (at 89 cooking)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll let you know the numbers in a little bit -- (1500 or so more sharks).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ty.

[Greedom1]

just wanted to let you know that i'm testing out my theory about yew fires vs. the rogue's den fire (at 89 cooking)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll let you know the numbers in a little bit -- (1500 or so more sharks).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are the results: (keep in mind these were all done at lvl 89 with guants)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Remember that AzNblue had 95.66% success on the Rogue's den fire. at lvl 89.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did 346 sharks, burned 20, and having 326 cooked on Rogue fire. (94.21% success)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then, I did 522 sharks, burned 22, and had 500 cooked on a yew fire. (95.78% success)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I used 16 yew logs, at a market rate of 300 gp per log: 4,800 gp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Had I continued to cook 522 sharks on the rogue's den fire, I likely would have burned between 30 and 31 sharks instead of 22.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My conclusion: yew log fires are in fact (albiet very slightly) better than the rogue's den fire, but the difference is negligle. The total savings -- maybe 10 sharks (balanced by the cost of yews), is about 5k. (hardly worth the extra time of lighting fires.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I still say that if you're going to cook in the fishing guild on a fire, then use yew logs -- in that case, the time of lighting a fire is not a factor, so yews are worth it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last comment: I admit my methodology is constrained by a limited sample, but I hope this adds to your understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

[Greedom1]

 

just wanted to let you know that i'm testing out my theory about yew fires vs. the rogue's den fire (at 89 cooking)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll let you know the numbers in a little bit -- (1500 or so more sharks).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are the results: (keep in mind these were all done at lvl 89 with guants)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Remember that AzNblue had 95.66% success on the Rogue's den fire. at lvl 89.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did 346 sharks, burned 20, and having 326 cooked on Rogue fire. (94.21% success)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then, I did 522 sharks, burned 22, and had 500 cooked on a yew fire. (95.78% success)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I used 16 yew logs, at a market rate of 300 gp per log: 4,800 gp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Had I continued to cook 522 sharks on the rogue's den fire, I likely would have burned between 30 and 31 sharks instead of 22.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My conclusion: yew log fires are in fact (albiet very slightly) better than the rogue's den fire, but the difference is negligle. The total savings -- maybe 10 sharks (balanced by the cost of yews), is about 5k. (hardly worth the extra time of lighting fires.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I still say that if you're going to cook in the fishing guild on a fire, then use yew logs -- in that case, the time of lighting a fire is not a factor, so yews are worth it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last comment: I admit my methodology is constrained by a limited sample, but I hope this adds to your understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New update:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cooked another 522 sharks using just the rogue's fire to see any other effects: (still all within lvl 89)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total: 522, burned 25, having 497 cooked. (95.21% success).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Either my data didn't include enough iterations, and the effect is truly neglible, or it could be something else. Could you --maybe-- actually improve slightly --within--a level, and maybe not just when you actually improve to the next level? <--- Has anyone studied this? I'm curious to know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Other skills this could impact obviously are the speeds of mining, wcing, and fishing ... anyone know?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

[AzNbLuE]

Heh, this brings back memories of the debate about a year or so back on whether or not it was possible to level past 99 despite the fact that it didn't actually show a tangible level up. I don't remember if that actually came to anything, but obviously this sort of thing is difficult to prove in any manner as the difference, if any, is so slight that it takes a massive amount of trials to really lead to anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On another note, I do remember either the Lumbridge cook saying or the quest completion scroll indicating that the range in Lumbridge castle burned food less. At least I think this is the case, I did the quest on a new character of mine a few weeks ago; I did the quest ~3 years ago on RS1 on my main and I remember no such dialogue, but it was so long ago that I could be mistaken.

[Dist]

Ah that sucks...So much work on sharks...Now the new potato thingies heal 22.

[hazardmaster]

I always ahd a theory that ranges burnt more often than an open fire. I believe ranges take longer to cook than a fire...well the animation at least.

[AzNbLuE]

Ah that sucks...So much work on sharks...Now the new potato thingies heal 22.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We've had a 22 healing food for a long time, manta ray. The new potatoes aren't going to take over the market anymore than mantas did, simply because it's far too much trouble to get large amounts of them. In any case, my goal has no real basis in practicality, and just has to do with wanting to best my friend and get a 99 skill >_>

[tilly]

nicenice :) i'm currently aimin for 67 fishin and cookin,will take bout 1 week :)

[vicfung3]

I would say potato thingies will definitly replace manta rays. Manta rays arent taht east to get anyways, and gequire several ppl to man the trawler. Not everyone has the time to do trawler with u right? Even if u get manta rays, u need extreemely high cooking to prevent urself from burning too many. Even 99 cooking, u can still burn them.

[Greedom1]

Heh, this brings back memories of the debate about a year or so back on whether or not it was possible to level past 99 despite the fact that it didn't actually show a tangible level up. I don't remember if that actually came to anything, but obviously this sort of thing is difficult to prove in any manner as the difference, if any, is so slight that it takes a massive amount of trials to really lead to anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On another note, I do remember either the Lumbridge cook saying or the quest completion scroll indicating that the range in Lumbridge castle burned food less. At least I think this is the case, I did the quest on a new character of mine a few weeks ago; I did the quest ~3 years ago on RS1 on my main and I remember no such dialogue, but it was so long ago that I could be mistaken.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest data from lvl 90 cooking (1k sharks all done at lvl 90 on rogues fire using guants)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-100: --Cooked 96, Burned 4 (96% success)

 

 

 

101-200 Cooked 95, Burned 5 (95% success)

 

 

 

201-300 Cooked 95, Burned 5 (95% success)

 

 

 

301-400 Cooked 95, Burned 5 (95% success)

 

 

 

401-500 Cooked 98, Burned 2 (98% success) :)

 

 

 

501-600 Cooked 97, Burned 3 (97% success)

 

 

 

601-700 Cooked 95, Burned 5 (95% success)

 

 

 

701-800 Cooked 97, Burned 3 (97% success)

 

 

 

801-900 Cooked 94, Burned 6 (94% success)

 

 

 

901-1000 Cooked 91, Burned 9 (91% success) :(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall: Cooked 953, burned 47 (95.3% success)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burn rate (every 100): 4, 5, 5, 5, 2, 3, 5, 3, 6, 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis: I thought I might have improved with cooking rates as i gained xp within a certain cook level. As you can see, there is no clear pattern visible in the data. If the trend was: Burn 5, 5, 6, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4 -- then the data might suggest that burn rates decrease --within -- a level. I'll try this again as I do levels 91, 92, and so forth, when there's plenty of iterations to do this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion: there is likely little effect as you gain xp --within-- a level, but I think more data is needed. The last two sets of 100 clearly were not in balance with the rest of the sets, though I was doing the same method as before. (Maybe they have a "luck" variable in there...) :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whatever algorithm they have controlling this must be set to the cooking levels, and not to the xp -- it seems just too random (within a constraint) for there to be a clear trend towards improved cook rates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll let you know how it goes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

[lazy_k]

I always thought it was 94 lol. Even in rsc.

[Greedom1]

I always thought it was 94 lol. Even in rsc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know, that's not what i'm testing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I want to see is if during my lvling from say 90-91, or 91-92, I burn more sharks earlier in that process (all else being equal), as opposed to when I get more xp and am closer to the next level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, if I need 3k sharks to level, when will i burn the most of them? Will there be any patterns? Or will I tend to burn them randomly (e.g. evenly) though the level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any help in pointing me to old posts on this would be great. Sorry if this is a topic that has come up previously.

[3P0int0]

Back when i was started a little bit of a cooking spree (63-80) I thought I'd burn up a few lobbies while getting to 65 (the known no-burn level) through lvl 63 i burnt a couple not sure on #'s but on 64 I stopped burning lobbies completely (even if 64-65 is a very small exp difference).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So since 64 cooking I haven't burnt a lobbie. After a while I'm going to head for 95-99 as I've come into some $ for once. 8)

[Streetsoccer]

It was the same with me and lobsters. At 59 i stoped burning them, but they are saÃÆÃâÃâíd to be at lvl 60.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im 69 cooking and I still burn lobsters

[AzNbLuE]

 

It was the same with me and lobsters. At 59 i stoped burning them, but they are saÃÆÃâÃâíd to be at lvl 60.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im 69 cooking and I still burn lobsters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not with cooking gauntlets you wouldn't.

[drgnslyer_15]

 

It was the same with me and lobsters. At 59 i stoped burning them, but they are saÃÆÃâÃâíd to be at lvl 60.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im 69 cooking and I still burn lobsters

65 you won't burn lobs with gaunts at 75 you stop burning em all together