138 vs. 200: Vote on combat level formula! (not guaranteed content)

[Quyneax]

Except that 99 att + str + range would be as powerful as 99 mage + def + hp. It wouldn't be a good idea to make all skills contribute equally.

 

Certain skills are (nearly) useless without a companion skill. For example, defence is almost useless at defending without the corresponding hp level you need for armour. The same for attack and strength: if you have 99/1 or 1/99 your dps is still going to be pretty bad (more so with 1 attack than 1 strength, but okay). At the same time, defence isn't very useful if you don't have any offence, summoning is useless if you don't have defence and hp and so on and so forth.

 

If you want to reflect that, you'll need to pick the lowest out of hp and def, the highest out of atk + .5 str, 1.5 mage and 1.5 ranged, get .5 summoning but only up to def level and .5 prayer but only up to dps level.

 

At max combat, you'd be 99 + 149.5 + 49.5 + 49.5 = 347.5. Min combat being 3.5. Depending on how big you want your numbers to be, I'd divide that by something - 2.5 is fine (139 combat max).

[Wkw]

Okay, why not do something like, combine attack and strength into ONE skill; melee.

[Quyneax]

Read the topic :P.

[hide]

Instead of excluding strength or removing it, it should become a general combat skill that boosts damage for all combat styles (naturally, that means it must be trained as constitution is) as well as a number of skilling methods (not just fly fishing).

[/hide]

We can pretty much assume that removing skills is not an option, no matter what. Re-using skills, however, is very possible.

[Urza285]

Q I am insulted that, as a freelance fan concept developer, you had nothing to say about my agility idea.

 

HMPH!

[inner fears]

138 for sure

[Flyingjj]

The combat formula is useless in both its current and old form. With how dynamic combat is in runescape, with both offensive and defensive stats mattering in overall combat capability, no single number is ever going to be a good representation of combat power.

[helring]

What about if it calculated it for all 3 and put it up there. Helring (200/200/200). It would let you know at a glance how strong your opponent is in each main style. Then the only issue really is it doesn't include prayer.

[Maxingmck]

The combat formula is useless in both its current and old form. With how dynamic combat is in runescape, with both offensive and defensive stats mattering in overall combat capability, no single number is ever going to be a good representation of combat power.

Bankwealth

[Invasian]

I wouldn't mind 138 combat back, would be pretty sweet :D

[Ruinous Edge]

the ideal solution I would recommend would be making melee a one skill combat like mage and ranged by either removing attack from melee calculation and branding it as a jack of all trades accuracy/aim or strength as previously mentioned making strength an all styles skill swing blade harder/pull back bowstring further/faster or concentrate/summon inner focus for mage damage boost. so the formula would then read to max;

99 def + 99 str/att (see above) + 99 style skill ( range, mage or att/str) + 99 hp + 99 prayer + 99 summ.

 

That way you don't favour melee by penalising magers/rangers for having one less contributing skill but still include all the combat related skills in some sort of relevant way. Not sure how to split the skills formula wise maybe 25:25:25:10:5:5 as a very rough guess on my part or what the max level would be.

Also to colour code the combat level blue for mage, green for range, red for melee, depending on there highest skill out of the three primary combat style skills (range, mage and att or str (based on above decision)) or if they have maxed all three make there combat appear as yellow or purple.  Alternatively show the colour combat based on the style of weapon they wield in real time, so it alternates as they switch weapons as dagganoth mother does during weakness phases in horror from the deep between red, blue or green.

[michel555555]

how bout just keep the combat formula as is but instead of highest stats it goes off of whatever weapon you have in inven or equiped that is your highest combat style. then add in the old cb formula where your cb level went up if you had a familiar. the old thing where your cb level was in brackets.

[Abdulla]

how bout just keep the combat formula as is but instead of highest stats it goes off of whatever weapon you have in inven or equiped that is your highest combat style. then add in the old cb formula where your cb level went up if you had a familiar. the old thing where your cb level was in brackets.

Your combat level would change too much, it definitely is more representative of your tanking/dps abilities (at least gear wise) than the old system, but I don't think the rs population can handle such a dramatic change. It's actually not a bad idea.

[Major Dash]

 

how bout just keep the combat formula as is but instead of highest stats it goes off of whatever weapon you have in inven or equiped that is your highest combat style. then add in the old cb formula where your cb level went up if you had a familiar. the old thing where your cb level was in brackets.

Your combat level would change too much, it definitely is more representative of your tanking/dps abilities (at least gear wise) than the old system, but I don't think the rs population can handle such a dramatic change. It's actually not a bad idea.

 

 

 

So you are fighting in the wilderness when you find yourself losing the fight and unable to tele. Just switch armor and become unattackable by the other player. 

[Abdulla]

 

 

how bout just keep the combat formula as is but instead of highest stats it goes off of whatever weapon you have in inven or equiped that is your highest combat style. then add in the old cb formula where your cb level went up if you had a familiar. the old thing where your cb level was in brackets.

Your combat level would change too much, it definitely is more representative of your tanking/dps abilities (at least gear wise) than the old system, but I don't think the rs population can handle such a dramatic change. It's actually not a bad idea.

 

 

 

So you are fighting in the wilderness when you find yourself losing the fight and unable to tele. Just switch armor and become unattackable by the other player. 

 

Obviously they would set it up so that wouldn't occur. What we were agreeing on is the concept of having your combat level mean something. For example the player m1ni is a 1 def pure with everything else 99, his combat level is just above half the max yet his pvm/pvp abilities probably surpass 99% of players. The combat level right now means nothing and that's one of the reasons why most players I believe want it to change (the other reason being nostalgia over 138).

[Major Dash]

My point is, it still really wouldn't mean much considering that your gear affects your output, not your stats. They just need to go back to the old 126 combat (including summoning) and make Attack universal.

[strilmus]

wouldn't a 1 def pure in the current system take massive damage from everything except for that one time they attempted to do scaled pvp in the event

[brunokiller]

My point is, it still really wouldn't mean much considering that your gear affects your output, not your stats. They just need to go back to the old 126 combat (including summoning) and make Attack universal.

Or just remove the attack skill.

[Major Dash]

We could also remove Constitution while we are at it since it has very little relevance outside of armor lp bonus.

[vmser]

Personally, instead of def + highest + 2, I'd go with the two highest + 2.

[Abdulla]

wouldn't a 1 def pure in the current system take massive damage from everything except for that one time they attempted to do scaled pvp in the event

He has videos of him doing Vorago/Nex and other bosses. It just basically shows that your combat level right now, does not represent in any way the pvm limitations of your account.

[Mercifull]

But the highest 2 is going to be misleading. If you are 99 defence and strength but only 48 ranging and you happen to be doing some ranging pvp your combat level is over stating your potential. I liked the idea of it showing three numbers on rollover Melee Range Magic

[vmser]

But the highest 2 is going to be misleading. If you are 99 defence and strength but only 48 ranging and you happen to be doing some ranging pvp your combat level is over stating your potential. I liked the idea of it showing three numbers on rollover Melee Range Magic

 

The fact you're only using t40 range gear with be a bit of a giveaway though...

Besides, if I decide to pick a fight with someone irl - I have no clue how 'skilled' they are in fights either. I can only assume that the muscular guy might be a bit harder to fight then the slim short guy. However, the latter may have martial arts training and the first one is all power but no brain, or slow as hell.

 

Combat level is only an indicator of 'skill' (well, stats more actually), and is NOT exact science. So I don't feel it should be made to be so anyway. Given the current level distribution, one may as well assume 99s all around :)

[Syd]

The old formula was way better than the current one. I'm not saying it is the best it could be, but I was very happy with it.

[Mercifull]

 

But the highest 2 is going to be misleading. If you are 99 defence and strength but only 48 ranging and you happen to be doing some ranging pvp your combat level is over stating your potential. I liked the idea of it showing three numbers on rollover Melee Range Magic

 

The fact you're only using t40 range gear with be a bit of a giveaway though...

Besides, if I decide to pick a fight with someone irl - I have no clue how 'skilled' they are in fights either. I can only assume that the muscular guy might be a bit harder to fight then the slim short guy. However, the latter may have martial arts training and the first one is all power but no brain, or slow as hell.

 

Combat level is only an indicator of 'skill' (well, stats more actually), and is NOT exact science. So I don't feel it should be made to be so anyway. Given the current level distribution, one may as well assume 99s all around :)

 

 

But it's a bit boring seeing so many people at level 200. I'd like to see some variation in the numbers even if it didn't make any difference in practice.

[Quasar]

Who cares, everyone is max combat anyways.