Ever wondered if your character is "good"? 30k+ Views!!

[Xg4m3r]

Wewt! my threads a hit! rating ftw! let's keep posting ppl :D

[niagra9]

12. Level 74 914 total my cbt level sux :P

[Borschwicz]

Im 15.68, Awesome =)

[elpaladin]

I've always had a problem with scales like this.

 

 

 

First of all, they don't take into account how skill points are distributed beyond combat, for instance two characters with 1600 skill total are not comparable if one has a lot of 70s and 80s level skills while one has a few lower level skills with higher concentration of effort in a handful of 90+ skills. These characters are clearly not equal, and though they would have to be examined side by side, often those with a concentration of higher skills and a few lower skills as opposed to relatively balanced stats will have far more total experience points, which this scale also completely ignores.

 

 

 

I, for instance, am currently 1545 skill total and 113 combat. However, I wasn't around very long for Slayer and have only a level of 65, and construction and farming levels of 1. I am now F2p and cannot raise these skills any longer, nor do I plan on getting p2p anytime soon to raise them.

 

 

 

This gives me a ratio of 13.67 while a typical player of my skill total would probably these days only have 90-100 combat, having an extra 100+ skill levels that they could easily potentially gain without gaining a single combat level. This means in effect that their average skill level will be lower than mine, meaning less high leveled skills and less overall experience. Counterintuitively though, your formula says that their character is superior to mine, with an average of 15 levels per combat level. Not only is that inaccurate, they probably also lack a lot of the experience and perspective I have from having most likely played longer than the typical person with a sub-1600 skill total these days. The fallacy in this system becomes even more apparent when discussing people who haven't started using any of the new RS2 skills period, old schoolers with relatively low skill totals and insanely high combat levels.

 

 

 

The dumbest thing about these scales though is that they assume that having combat is somehow a bad thing, or that by somehow devoting more time to non-combat skills than combat, a character magically becomes better. Clearly that was not how the creators of the game intended things to be, and not how many have really percieved the game, or we would not see the amount of level 126 characters that we do. This rating system also kindly ignores the fact that Magic, Prayer and Range (which supposedly diminish the quality of a character by raising its combat level relative to its total level) are among the most expensive (and in the case of prayer, time consuming) to raise and instead indicates that they are somehow less valueable than firemaking and agility, two of the cheapest and easier to level skills in the game, but which nonetheless supposedly improve the quality of the character by enhancing the numerator in this equation, which is total skill level.

 

 

 

And finally, this system examines a ratio only. Would a character with 1500 skill total and 100 combat (ratio of 15/1) be better than a character with 1800 skill total and 126 combat? (14.3/1)

[My_Eggs]

94 combat, 1316 total- i scored a solid 14 :D i'll post my skiller's in a second, i havnt worked on him in a while so it might not be good...

 

 

 

Edit: roflmfao!!!! my skiller is lvl 3 with a total of 146 therefor he scored a 48.6... he must own then lol

[cl4ssic]

ive got +18 and im pure= )

[VendettaInc]

I'm p2p - not even at 13 :)

[1canadian1]

19, Combat 52/993 Total.

[Caxis]

16.67

 

 

 

Combat 98 total 1634, average level = 74.27 :o

[ElCusco]

This cant even be close to accurate. I mean, a level 50 with a total of 800 would have a better average then a 126 with 1900 total. I think its better to take ur average level (mine is 64,7 at 1423 total for example. 1423/22 since there is 22 skills) and get it from there. Like 50+ is good, 60+ is better then average, 70+ is impressive and 80+ is Woah.

 

 

 

Or you can do the same thing with your xp. (my average xp is 873521/skill at 19,217,462/22, but you dont even get close to the same result as in the averagelvl since 873k xp = averagelvl 71)

 

 

 

Anything but this, since this cant be a good way to calculate how good your characher is.

[elpaladin]

That and it only applies to certain players. Any good system should work for all players.

[XJR]

15.6 :)

[neoscape]

11.8, 72 combat + F2P \

[tripsis]

I've always had a problem with scales like this.

 

 

 

First of all, they don't take into account how skill points are distributed beyond combat, for instance two characters with 1600 skill total are not comparable if one has a lot of 70s and 80s level skills while one has a few lower level skills with higher concentration of effort in a handful of 90+ skills. These characters are clearly not equal, and though they would have to be examined side by side, often those with a concentration of higher skills and a few lower skills as opposed to relatively balanced stats will have far more total experience points, which this scale also completely ignores.

 

 

 

I, for instance, am currently 1545 skill total and 113 combat. However, I wasn't around very long for Slayer and have only a level of 65, and construction and farming levels of 1. I am now F2p and cannot raise these skills any longer, nor do I plan on getting p2p anytime soon to raise them.

 

 

 

This gives me a ratio of 13.67 while a typical player of my skill total would probably these days only have 90-100 combat, having an extra 100+ skill levels that they could easily potentially gain without gaining a single combat level. This means in effect that their average skill level will be lower than mine, meaning less high leveled skills and less overall experience. Counterintuitively though, your formula says that their character is superior to mine, with an average of 15 levels per combat level. Not only is that inaccurate, they probably also lack a lot of the experience and perspective I have from having most likely played longer than the typical person with a sub-1600 skill total these days. The fallacy in this system becomes even more apparent when discussing people who haven't started using any of the new RS2 skills period, old schoolers with relatively low skill totals and insanely high combat levels.

 

 

 

The dumbest thing about these scales though is that they assume that having combat is somehow a bad thing, or that by somehow devoting more time to non-combat skills than combat, a character magically becomes better. Clearly that was not how the creators of the game intended things to be, and not how many have really percieved the game, or we would not see the amount of level 126 characters that we do. This rating system also kindly ignores the fact that Magic, Prayer and Range (which supposedly diminish the quality of a character by raising its combat level relative to its total level) are among the most expensive (and in the case of prayer, time consuming) to raise and instead indicates that they are somehow less valueable than firemaking and agility, two of the cheapest and easier to level skills in the game, but which nonetheless supposedly improve the quality of the character by enhancing the numerator in this equation, which is total skill level.

 

 

 

And finally, this system examines a ratio only. Would a character with 1500 skill total and 100 combat (ratio of 15/1) be better than a character with 1800 skill total and 126 combat? (14.3/1)

 

 

 

I agree completely :?

[the_tallest1]

This is only a bit of fun. I highly doubt the "quality" of your character can be changed one way or the other based on this. It's just a fun little calculation I've seen before that is sorta entertaining. I've seen more people enjoying posting here on this than those that dislike the system he made. Just enjoy taking part in it. If we wanted to throw in combat percentage, standard deviation and combat lvl vs. total to get a more "accurate" system I'm sure we could.

 

 

 

But more on topic: 1703/89= 19.13, cmb% = ~15.5. I'll leave the standard deviation to Ard since I don't know mine off-hand. :mrgreen:

[Xg4m3r]

Ty mod, yes this is just a little scale WE thought up based on results from a small survey, no it will not work for every player and as stated will not work for pures skillers etc. and it is just something to look at on the forums, so dom't start spamming my thread with rants, keep any criticism constructive if not you can get off my post.

[elpaladin]

Perhaps I was a little coarse in my criticism, but I feel that I raised completely valid arguments , and I stand by my previous assertions.

[Freakyhair]

15.2 =)

[Kenshinjapan]

15.2 :-k not bad

[spikegamer]

woot im an 11.4!!! oh im f2p so yeah heheh lvl 79 and 903 total lvl

[Xg4m3r]

Yeh i respect your views elpaladin, but like other people, let's just have fun posting! yeah! :D

[Xg4m3r]

wewt 76 fletch, 4 more lvls

[KillerAxe6]

I own you all!

 

Combat 3 Total 283, 94 If i am correct.

[jim_bob17]

15, yay! lol 1606 total at 107 cb.. all skills over 60

[Shadow93]

15.2 here \