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

[Hedgehog]

 

 

Ideally the combat formula would be representative of the max average damage output. Just divide base damage by 10 or 12 and you're good.

Make a formula for that please =3!

Turns out the current formula is actually an incredibly reliable way of knowing how powerful someone is. The only problem is that defense is a little overvalued because level x attack vs level x defense favors attack.

[HunterDexter]

That's not the reason at all, Ring_World. The current level 200 says nothing about your power at all, it only factors 2 combat skills, where there are 8 skills. The old level system at least made an effort to show you those levels.

[Alg]

That's not the reason at all, Ring_World. The current level 200 says nothing about your power at all, it only factors 2 combat skills, where there are 8 skills. The old level system at least made an effort to show you those levels.

The old system also didn't tell you anything about your power, a flaw it shares with the current system is that you could completely break it by something as small as not training a stat as much... Unless a well-built pure really has the same kind of power as a player with, what, 40s across the board? I'd go as far as to say it was utterly useless at telling you how powerful players were until you were 138 (where you were probably, but not guaranteed to be, max combat), in addition to being less intuitive because of the way skills were weighed: especially now that magic in particular is so powerful.

 

I honestly can't see reasons for it other than nostalgia and maxed players wanting it to be 'special' (at the cost of everything else). A new formula would be the best option, going back to the old one would probably be among the worst.

[Miss Lioness]

I voted for a new formula.

[Ammako]

I wouldn't mind having 138 as the max level for the sake of nostalgia as long as it was based off a better formula.

 

The problen, though, is that it's very hard (if even possible) to make formulas that would accurately let you guess others' combat abilities (since it seems that's what people want), because the same numbers could be achieved from various different combinations of stats.

The only thing that could be accurately represented would be lv 1 all stats = lowest level and lv 99 all stats = max level.

[Hedgehog]

It is literally impossible to estimate someone's damage output with the old combat system. It is not a better formula.

[Smk]

138 pls

[Yoko Kurama]

The old combat wasn't perfect but it's far better than the current farce which does not even deserved to be labeled a formula of any sort. 138, and modify it if you need, but 138 easily.

[tgf]

I personally am fine either way but i voted for 138 just for the very small chance that they change monster levels back to pre-eoc and forget to change effigy formulas.

 

pls jagex lv 475 glacors  :D

[kamil1210]

>The old combat wasn't perfect but it's far better than the current farce which does not even deserved to be labeled a formula of any sort. 138, and modify it if you need, but 138 easily.

 

Please explain how 138 is better than 200

[Yoko Kurama]

>The old combat wasn't perfect but it's far better than the current farce which does not even deserved to be labeled a formula of any sort. 138, and modify it if you need, but 138 easily.

 

Please explain how 138 is better than 200

 

138 at least takes into account (though in a flawed manner) all real skills that actually impact combat. The new formula has the gall to pretend that prayer and summoning aren't combat skills, which is a ludcrious suggestion. In a fight between someone with with 99 attack/strength/defense, prayer and summoning, and someone with only 99 attack/strength/defense and 1 summoning and 1 prayer; you tell me, who is more likely to win? You tell me. Hint: it's not the person without turmoil.

 

Second, and most importantly, the 138 combat actually means that the person who has 138 is maxed (or nearly maxed in all combat skills). The current combat formula for 200 suggests that someone with 2 level 99s (1 'combat skill' + defense + 2) is level 200 and as equally as maxed as someone who has all combat stats  at 99. It's ridiculous. Maxed combat should actually mean maxed combat, not 2 out of 8 skills at 99. It's the equivalent of Jagex decided that anyone with 1 out 8 skills at 99 is worthy of a Maxed cape, it's silly. The 200 combat formula is also so easy to obtain (only 2 out of 8 skills at 99), that just about everyone (purposeful exaggeration) is at 200. I have no meaningful way to tell in places like Dungeoneering or whatever whether my teammates are actually maxed combat or noobs with 2 99s. The only way I have to distinguish people is through the highscores, which is lame. 138, as flawed as it was, at least told me that the person was reasonably competent in combat. The new formula does no such thing.

[helring]

 

>The old combat wasn't perfect but it's far better than the current farce which does not even deserved to be labeled a formula of any sort. 138, and modify it if you need, but 138 easily.

 

Please explain how 138 is better than 200

 

138 at least takes into account (though in a flawed manner) all real skills that actually impact combat. The new formula has the gall to pretend that prayer and summoning aren't combat skills, which is a ludcrious suggestion. In a fight between someone with with 99 attack/strength/defense, prayer and summoning, and someone with only 99 attack/strength/defense and 1 summoning and 1 prayer; you tell me, who is more likely to win? You tell me. Hint: it's not the person without turmoil.

 

Second, and most importantly, the 138 combat actually means that the person who has 138 is maxed (or nearly maxed in all combat skills). The current combat formula for 200 suggests that someone with 2 level 99s (1 'combat skill' + defense + 2) is level 200 and as equally as maxed as someone who has all combat stats  at 99. It's ridiculous. Maxed combat should actually mean maxed combat, not 2 out of 8 skills at 99. It's the equivalent of Jagex decided that anyone with 1 out 8 skills at 99 is worthy of a Maxed cape, it's silly. The 200 combat formula is also so easy to obtain (only 2 out of 8 skills at 99), that just about everyone (purposeful exaggeration) is at 200. I have no meaningful way to tell in places like Dungeoneering or whatever whether my teammates are actually maxed combat or noobs with 2 99s. The only way I have to distinguish people is through the highscores, which is lame. 138, as flawed as it was, at least told me that the person was reasonably competent in combat. The new formula does no such thing.

 

 

138 was never about "maxing combat", it had to do with threat level. Including prayer is an advantage but with the old formula you could still be maxed without doing any range or magic still as well. You could also be maxed range or magic and still under 100 combat. The new combat system can make a person look more dangerous than they are, but the new one allowed people to hide how high their threat level was and look much less dangerous than they are.

[Urza285]

You guys need to remember you should be discussing the potential threat. You need to keep in mind the combat formula is the potential threat. While the weapon and expertise a player has is the actual threat. The combat level is supposed to show a players potential to survive (defense and constitution) and their ability to attack (attack/strength, ranged and magic). The inclusion of prayer I guess is for defensive and offensive boost potential. I guess this is why people wanted herblore as a combat stat, too since it had such a big influence.

 

If you really wanted a slightly better formula I think pitting in combat level vsriables for your armours tier level would be great. You could do a defensive average by adding all defensive armours minus the shield together and dividing by slots. Then you would do the same for each item in hand including shields. You would need to double it for two handed items.

[Mercifull]

If they change it, I want a reprinted set of RuneScape Top Trumps cards. Ta.

[ilovecuttingyews]

What about a combat level calculated by weighting different cb skills differently? Say you take something like the sum of:

0.30 * hitpoints

0.25 * attack

0.25 * range

0.25 * mage

0.15 * strength

0.15 * summoning

0.10 * prayer

0.10 * defence

That way all combat skills are still included, but you skew the weighting towards offensive skills.

 

Disclaimer: I know little about combat, and even less about all that fancy dps math people do. The numbers are arbitrary.

[Quyneax]

@OTM: That's how the old system worked, roughly, except that HP was weighed less, and strength more, and defence more. The old system was: 1/4th defence and hp, 1/8th prayer and summoning, roughly half magic or ranged or a third of attack + strength.

 

138 was never about "maxing combat", it had to do with threat level. Including prayer is an advantage but with the old formula you could still be maxed without doing any range or magic still as well. You could also be maxed range or magic and still under 100 combat. The new combat system can make a person look more dangerous than they are, but the new one allowed people to hide how high their threat level was and look much less dangerous than they are.

Is this really true? I don't think so.

 

Everybody keeps repeating how the old/138 formula allowed people to hide how powerful they were, and how the new/200 formula regularly overestimates people's power. People also see that Graardor was level 624 - four and a half times higher than a maxed player, despite being soloable many times per trip - under the old system and is now level 210 - despite being classified as tier 75 - under the new formula. Hard mode Graardor? He's also 210 combat. Nex? Used to be 1001, is now 220. So is Nex 5% stronger than Graardor, or is Nex one and a half times stronger?

 

So, what formula gives you a decent indication of power?

 

I think combat level has never been accurate enough that you can say it's been about combat strength - that's just a myth perpetuated by Jagex, because that's what they designed it for.

 

That said, the old formula would give you a minimum combat strength: at 115 combat, it's at least all 80s, at best a turmoil zerker. The current formula? That does the same: 200 combat is at least 99 Strength and Defence, but it might well be completely maxed, and it doesn't reflect equipment at all - equipment has only gotten more important with EoC, so that's a bigger drawback. There's no more budget/low-level decent armour like the old rune.

[kamil1210]

0.30 * hitpoints

0.25 * attack

0.25 * range

0.25 * mage

0.15 * strength

 

Why 0,40 for melee when magic/ranged have 0,25?

[muggiwhplar]

@OTM: That's how the old system worked, roughly, except that HP was weighed less, and strength more, and defence more. The old system was: 1/4th defence and hp, 1/8th prayer and summoning, roughly half magic or ranged or a third of attack + strength.

 

 

138 was never about "maxing combat", it had to do with threat level. Including prayer is an advantage but with the old formula you could still be maxed without doing any range or magic still as well. You could also be maxed range or magic and still under 100 combat. The new combat system can make a person look more dangerous than they are, but the new one allowed people to hide how high their threat level was and look much less dangerous than they are.

Is this really true? I don't think so.

 

Everybody keeps repeating how the old/138 formula allowed people to hide how powerful they were, and how the new/200 formula regularly overestimates people's power. People also see that Graardor was level 624 - four and a half times higher than a maxed player, despite being soloable many times per trip - under the old system and is now level 210 - despite being classified as tier 75 - under the new formula. Hard mode Graardor? He's also 210 combat. Nex? Used to be 1001, is now 220. So is Nex 5% stronger than Graardor, or is Nex one and a half times stronger?

 

So, what formula gives you a decent indication of power?

 

I think combat level has never been accurate enough that you can say it's been about combat strength - that's just a myth perpetuated by Jagex, because that's what they designed it for.

 

That said, the old formula would give you a minimum combat strength: at 115 combat, it's at least all 80s, at best a turmoil zerker. The current formula? That does the same: 200 combat is at least 99 Strength and Defence, but it might well be completely maxed, and it doesn't reflect equipment at all - equipment has only gotten more important with EoC, so that's a bigger drawback. There's no more budget/low-level decent armour like the old rune.

For the old graardor example, youre using equipment and stat boosts and food to fight him. If you fought a lvl 138 monster without equipment, food, or protection prayers, it was a lot more even.

 

if combat level is to be truly accurate, it must constantly change depending on your equipment and inventory and active familiars/prayers.

[Quyneax]

Aye, that's what the old formula was about: no equipment, nearly all monsters were unarmed. Which, in its way, is pretty fair, because equipment is visible anyway, right?

 

Yes, if you want a combat level to be accurate, it must change depending on your equipment. That's also the point: combat level is not meant to give an indication of strength: it's meant to give an indication of levels, with equipment being visible (overrides don't work in PvP, remember!), and your opponent's inventory being an unknown. (PvP) Combat has always been a game of incomplete information, that's at least half the fun - bosses never had that 'dangerous' feel because they don't have inventories to play with.

 

Nobody wants a game where you can predict the outcome of a fight based on a couple of combat levels difference - that would take all the skill out of reading an opponent. If you see someone at 115 combat being zerker-y, it's a zerker, that simple. If they aren't using Soul Split (and you didn't see a Turmoil animation), then be aware they may be 80 attack instead of 60 or 70. That's excitement, and that's good.

[muggiwhplar]

Aye, that's what the old formula was about: no equipment, nearly all monsters were unarmed. Which, in its way, is pretty fair, because equipment is visible anyway, right?

Sorta-- especially since in EoC you can see the other person's active "buffs" too (right? I dont play anymore lol)

 

But even though you know what their equipment is, you cant calculate specifically what their potential is compared to yours.

 

It's like removing combat levels altogether but keeping the high scores and having to estimate their potential based on their stats, compared to yours. Easier to just have a number generated for you so you dont have to guess and do the mental math

 

To the second part of your post, I agree. And with that being said, it sort of makes the accuracy of the combat formula much less important.

[Hedgehog]

What about a combat level calculated by weighting different cb skills differently? Say you take something like the sum of:

0.30 * hitpoints

0.25 * attack

0.25 * range

0.25 * mage

0.15 * strength

0.15 * summoning

0.10 * prayer

0.10 * defence

That way all combat skills are still included, but you skew the weighting towards offensive skills.

 

Disclaimer: I know little about combat, and even less about all that fancy dps math people do. The numbers are arbitrary.

The more skills you add to the formula, the less accurate it gets. It doesn't matter if someone is 99 magic and 75 ranged in PvP because they'll fight with magic, not ranged, so there's no need to put ranged in the formula.

[kamil1210]

 

The more skills you add to the formula, the less accurate it gets. It doesn't matter if someone is 99 magic and 75 ranged in PvP because they'll fight with magic, not ranged, so there's no need to put ranged in the formula. 

 

what if someone use weapon swap?

[Hedgehog]

 

 

The more skills you add to the formula, the less accurate it gets. It doesn't matter if someone is 99 magic and 75 ranged in PvP because they'll fight with magic, not ranged, so there's no need to put ranged in the formula. 

 

what if someone use weapon swap?

 

Then they're going to have less power than their combat level suggests, so they wouldn't switch. Remember that we don't have special attack weapons anymore, so switching to a t(x-y) weapon from a tx weapon is kind of stupid. Of course, some abilities make things a little "interesting", such as conc blast making virtus wands about as good as drygores, but it'd be better to fix that than design the combat formula around it.

[kamil1210]

 

 

 

The more skills you add to the formula, the less accurate it gets. It doesn't matter if someone is 99 magic and 75 ranged in PvP because they'll fight with magic, not ranged, so there's no need to put ranged in the formula. 

 

what if someone use weapon swap?

 

Then they're going to have less power than their combat level suggests, so they wouldn't switch. Remember that we don't have special attack weapons anymore, so switching to a t(x-y) weapon from a tx weapon is kind of stupid. Of course, some abilities make things a little "interesting", such as conc blast making virtus wands about as good as drygores, but it'd be better to fix that than design the combat formula around it.

 

 

isn't lower lvl stronger than high lvl if low level use good combat style?

[Platinum_Myr]

 

 

 

 

The more skills you add to the formula, the less accurate it gets. It doesn't matter if someone is 99 magic and 75 ranged in PvP because they'll fight with magic, not ranged, so there's no need to put ranged in the formula. 

 

what if someone use weapon swap?

 

Then they're going to have less power than their combat level suggests, so they wouldn't switch. Remember that we don't have special attack weapons anymore, so switching to a t(x-y) weapon from a tx weapon is kind of stupid. Of course, some abilities make things a little "interesting", such as conc blast making virtus wands about as good as drygores, but it'd be better to fix that than design the combat formula around it.

 

 

isn't lower lvl stronger than high lvl if low level use good combat style?

 

 

Technically yes, but not even close to a full tier difference.