Talk:Combat level

The section stating that combat levels indicate someone's trustworthiness is biased and should be either removed or rewritten. Opinions please. Shadowdancer 05:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I say we keep it. It is fine as it is unless someone wishes to change it a bit. Hopefully they will be alittle more accurate in some people's minds. It's all we got now. Just leave it.
 * It is an inaccurate statement. Shadowdancer 05:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a statement about an opinion! Do you think that not many people belive that high combat level players are more experienced and honest? I think that that is a prevailing opinion, and should be noted in this article. However, if it annoys you than get rid of it. -- Couchpotato99 20:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can rewrite it sometime.--24.109.206.88 14:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I personally think it's neutral. Lower-level players probably try to scam you more often and mostly for items, while higher level players can be much more skilled at scamming and most probably scam through the wilderness.
 * Trustworthiness in trades has very little to do with combat level. The sanction on bad trades and scamming by Jagex is the banning of an account. A higher level player has more time invested into traing the character, so the sanction is likely to have a bigger impact. Yet, even high level accounts get hacked, others just don't care. As combat levelling is not that hard compared to training some other skills, the same deterrent applies to pure skillers with high skill levels. --Miw 14:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, trustworthiness has little to do with combat level. Seeing as we all seem to have agreed (by majority) that the statement is largely incorrect, can't we just delete the section? --Raven110283 14:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Made an attempt to put more neutral text in the comment section. --Miw 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From my experience, the most un-trustworthy people are the mid-levels and the level 3's. People level 70 and above don't do scam. So I think that statement is somewhat true. 211.28.156.198 04:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Creditting
Hi, there. I have come across the use of our combat level formula on this page, which is always something I like to see. Please bear in mind though, that I specifically requested in my thread on the official RuneScape forums, that any reproduction of the formula, is accompanied by a visible acknowledgement of its creators. I have previously editted it in, but the page was reverted by someone else. Unfortunately, people on the internet have been copying our formula (previous versions of it), without any trace of our names. In some cases, the users even claimed it their own! This behaviour was caused by uncreditted reproductions of our formulae being scattered across the internet, and so, people weren't aware that we had created it, and copied it on and on, without any references to us being present along with it. For this reason we ask that the acknowledgement the formulae's creators is maintained (not just here but anywhere on the internet), by creditting its authors in the way described in my thread on the RuneScape forums. I will re-edit it in, please leave that piece as it is. Thanks! --MaxWaterman 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that it is difficult to prove that they directly copied your formula. In addition material uploaded is per the GFDL - we don't sign the additions we make the pages, so neither should we be giving copyright. Either it's released as per GFDL or not. I'm going to remove it to the talk page until this is cleared up. (Done) King Runite1 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the case whether or not it's difficult to prove that they copied the formula. Of course, there isn't always 100% proof, but sometimes it's obvious. Whenever we make updates to the formula and they appear elsewhere shortly afterwards, with the same coëfficients, then I strongly doubt it would be coïncidence. Also, I was under the impression that the GDFL allowed at least a visual acknowledgement of its author(s). Perhaps I may have misused the word "copyright". I meant to say that the formula can be freely distrubuted under the circumstance that the authors are clearly visibly acknowledged. I believe that is in accoordance with the GDFL. If not, then please remove the formula details from this page. Thanks. MaxWaterman 11:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Calculating combat level
'' Original formula by MaxWaterman, Fern1970, Helcaterian, Oblivion590, Hans980 and Benmarchant. ''
 * 1) Take your Prayer level and divide it by two and round down (for example, if your Prayer level is 43, dividing by two and rounding down gives you 21)
 * 2) Take your Summoning level and divide by two and round down (for example, if your Summoning level is 23, dividing by two and rounding down gives you 11). This only applies to Members. If you were a member and are not anymore, you will not have this skill used to figure out your levels (you will use 1 rather than your Summoning level).
 * 3) Add both these numbers to your Hitpoints and Defence levels and divide the result by 4. This is your base combat level. (for example, if your Hitpoints is 60, Defence is 70, Prayer is 43 and Summoning is 23 you should end up with 40.5)
 * 4) Add your Strength and Attack levels together and multiply by 0.325. Add this to your base combat level and you should have your melee combat level.
 * 5) If your Magic or Ranged level is exceptionally higher than your Attack and Strength, carry on - in the calculation noted below Magic is used, but if your Ranged is exceptionally higher, use that instead in all cases
 * 6) Multiply your magic level by 1.5 and round down (for example, if your magic level is 83, you should end up with 124).
 * 7) Multiply this by 0.325 and add the result to your base combat level calculated above, and you should have your magic combat level.

Combat lvl Calculator - Incorrect
The combat calculator is incorrect. your combat level is JUST the first bullet point - my combat level and my friend's combat level fit the first bullet pount.


 * Please don't sign comments unless you're logged in, we can't tell its you. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  11:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Options for a Wiki Combat Calculator
The Template:Combat is an alternative to the combat calculators from other fan-sites. It uses the formulae from the Combat level description. Inserting a calll to the template on the page itself, allows players to edit that paragraph, enter their combat skill levels and observe the resulting combat calculations. The only problem is that this produces lots of edits to the page. Perhaps it is possible to set-up a sandbox with default content that calls the template. User edits would hopefully not interfere with the Combat level page itself. Unfortunately, there is very little information on how to set-up a small Sandbox area or a Sandbox page. --Miw 15:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that the Template has been used as combat calculator. In order to prevent such use, i have added a Combat template call in this page with instructions on how to use it without disrupting the Log. An automated cleaning option would be preferable though. --Miw 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Summoning addition
They've announced that following summoning the max combat level is going to be 138. This looks like it'll just be a change to the base combat formula ie

Currently it's... Base = 0.25 (Defence + Hits + floor(Prayer/2)) It'll probably be... Base = 0.25 (Defence + Hits + floor(Prayer/2) + floor(Summoning/2))

This would give a maximum base combat level of 74 and a maximum combat level of 138.35. If this works out, then you will actually achieve combat level 138 at summoning level 96, assuming other combat skills are at 99.

Needs testing when it comes out. --Eucarya Talk 14:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Use Maths instead of Code
In the Mathematics section, the tag should be used instead of  where Attack, Strength, Defence, Hitpoints and Prayer are integers --Midimatt 10:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)