We Are More Than Animals. We Transcend Instinct.

Just a small bit I want to mention. While we seem to be naturally stagnating, I have this idea that suggests otherwise.

When you come to think of it, they say humans are the only animals to do certain things. A lot of certain things.

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2013/07/humans-are-the-only-animals-that/

You could look at the bolded ideas there.

Have you ever heard someone say that humans are the only species that commit suicide? Something so against the idea of survival instincts.

In contrast to that, you may have heard about how various things we do are controlled and managed by our survival instincts.

"Humans have a natural instinct we have been using for centuries - just drink when you are thirsty."

We feel hungry and it prompts us to eat.

We feel pain and it prompts us to avoid danger.

Poisonous food tastes bad.

Sometimes we forget to realize that we are animals. Animals with the instinct to survive and thrive. Lots of animals have survival cues like these.

But that's the thing. We are the only species with the ability to think beyond our survival cues. We can learn more than what our faulty instincts tell us.

I hear it on The Atheist Experience once as my dad was watching it in the other room. Our instincts can actually be extremely unintuitive.

Things that taste good are bad for us.

Things that taste bad are good for us.

Our bodies reward instant gratification. Extra thought is required to understand long-term planning, and even more habitual training is needed to get one to commit to it.

But we can do it. We can think beyond primal instinct. We can learn to do more than what normal life can.

We can choose to help others. We can choose to hurt others.

 And that is mere psychology. Technology and science goes even further.

Not only can we try to condition ourselves, but we are learning ways to engineer ourselves.

We could be the first generation of un-aging humans. But we could also be the final generation of living humans, if a superwar breaks out.

Again, we can choose to help others, and we can choose to hurt others.

I've had this philosophy in mind, but the social structure of our world tends to reward cooperation and friendliness more than it does antagonism or totalitarianism.

The USA is blessed by the fact that it is very hard to live a normal, peaceful life if you actually commit crime. Only suspicious or shady people have to worry about police. As I am a very honest person, I live without any of that sort of stress that drives people into doing even worse thing.

Consider this man. It is inevitable that he will be captured. But why doesn't he give up on trying to run away? There's no way he'll ever be able to get on some airplane or boat. He doesn't give up because he is already desperate from already getting his feet wet in the bloody shores of what he is doing.

A similar effect is shown to happen to criminals in the anime Psycho Pass, in which a person's mental state can be calculated instantly by a scanner gun, similar to a speedometer telling a car's speed. Once a person is calculated as being slightly capable of criminal behavior, and they are made aware of that fact, knowing that criminals are killed in this society, they suddenly become a lot more volatile, a lot more scared, and their "criminal coefficient" gets even worse.

In any case, just being honest is rewarding. Hope and goodness really does triumph. It's shown in history. In US history, we obtained independence and stopped having to do whatever people overseas said. The world defeated the Nazis. Etc.

And from that history, we know these things won't work. From science, innovation, and business, we know that humans do better creating and thinking than we do destroying and wasting.

You could say despair is a stepping stone to hope.

Of course there are still loop holes in what people do, especially when it comes to legal stuff. But hey, maybe it'll naturally be sorted some day if enough people complain and realize these things are being done. For example this:

While this guy seems like he has no hope of seeing righteous justice, one can hope for him. But who knows. Just being honest and hoping for something won't stop the most unfair or horrific things from happening.

Nonetheless, another good example of things naturally solving themselves are things like Youtube drama.

Since June of 2016 I suddenly started seeing a lot of videos about cases of Youtube drama between big name youtubers. Just outta nowhere. Apparently it's become a big enough issue for Youtube itself to make some rules.

But even if they didn't, I think this stuff would naturally solve itself. People don't like drama. youtubers know that drama is negativity. And people creating drama will get called out and outcasted. And it has happened. Once these people are outcasted, they lose whatever karma they had as a youtuber.

Since then, certain people or channels have lost a lot of popularity because the start drama. On the other hand, some channels have apologized and learned from the experience. Yes, social interaction with their communities and other people have made them realize that they can't just be jerks to anyone and get away with it. It comes back to them if they do.

I noticed a lot of this from h3h3 productions, ever since the first video of theirs that I ever saw, and the chain of videos after that.

Just the next day, the internet fights back.

In one of the videos after that, he does his apology saying he doesn't want to make videos to really unjustly demean others now. I think they unlisted it or something. I really forget what video it was. I don't really watch them.

Leafy did a similar thing as well. Maybe it was leafy that did it or something. idkwatlol.

Skip to https://youtu.be/kv2Td_H2MJY?t=4m49s

h3h3 also revealed some real problems that need to be taken down.

A while after seeing his video, I saw a video from Cr1tikal, who I'm subbed and watch almost everything from. And he's very against doing much about youtube drama. He posted this while youtube drama was blowing up everywhere:

And he posted this about the CS:GO gambling.

Ever since all of this, I've seen news on the TF2 reddit about how their matchmaking update was one of the worst things to happen in game, which also happened to have the CS:GO gambling fiasco listed there. I'm not sure what the article was. If you know plz tell me.

In any case, the guy behind that has had all his reputation destroyed. I think something similar happened to Keemstar. I don't keep up on this stuff, but apparently he even went into hiding? Idk.

Youtube doesn't need rules for the social behavior of what youtubers do. It's like scamming. After you've been scammed once, you don't get scammed again.

----

Whew, from war to youtube drama.

In any case, we are a complex species. Our desire to live supercedes any minority's belief in killing. Our ability to think supercedes our genetic faults.

We control our futures and our happiness.

----

You may not have noticed, but the way I worded and formatted this post was a bit influenced by the Danganronpa 3 anime airing near the time of writing.

Haha, it really does spread hope, doesn't it?

Windows of Reality

Looking at your monitor right now, what is its resolution? Mines is 1920x1080. That's 2,073,600 pixels. Many monitors today have 24-bits per pixel for color depth, which is a possible 16,777,216 (2^24) colors. Also known as "truecolor". If you wanted to display every possible color in 24-bit, you'd need a picture that's 4096x4096 in size. To give a better understanding of this, 1bpp (bits per pixel) would only have 2 colors (2^1), black and white. If that confuses you, try reading this.

Now think of this, when you take pictures of anything, unless you take a picture of something completely stationary with no changes in lighting between pictures, the picture will almost always be different. When you record a video, you are taking a sequence of hundreds to thousands of different still images, each of which would take up a different combination of pixels of various colors.

This is series of frames playing one after another at 10 frames per second.

What's important here, is that this animation takes up 6 different frames, 6 different images. Now going back to 1bpp color depth, how many possible different "frames" could you have if you had a monitor with a resolution of 2x2 pixels? With two possible colors, you can calculate the answer which is (2^1)^(2*2) or two to the power of color depth to the power of the resolution/number of pixels or 16. And just to make sure, you can look at this picture:

So, (2^24)^(1920*1080) would give you the number of images that could be projected onto my monitor.

Just to show how high that goes:

(2^24)^(2,073,600)

16,777,216^(2,073,600)

2^1 = 2

2^2 = 4

2^3 = 8

16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192 <-- this is how far I know by memory, which is 2^13. We know from our color depth that 2^24 is 16 million. 16 million squared is 281,474,976,710,656 which is already in the trillions and 16 million^2 million would likely be too large to even fit in this post.

To give another example of how this works out:

(2^1)^(2*3) is 64.

(3)^(1x1) is 3

(3)^(2x1) is 9

(number of colors)^(number of pixels)

An SNES's screen resolution is 256x224, which is already 57,344 pixels.

The SNES also has various emulation modes. One in particular is Mode 7 which is 8-bit (256 colors). Every pixel is represented by its own byte (hence, 8bpp or 8 bits per pixel). Each pixel can have 256 colors (0x00 to 0xFF).

The hex data shown in the hex editor would actually point to the palette of colors to choose from. 26 would be the 26th color starting from 0. I'd make a screenshot of my actual palette data for this, but I don't feel like going through Lunar Magic to do that.

Each of the colors shown in this 16x16 palette could be any other of the 256 colors you can have. In the case of this particular image, only 6 colors on the palette would be taken up, and those 6 colors could be any of 256 different colors. In this case, a red gradient.

Here is a video of these Giygas graphics in action, implemented into Super Mario World as a Mode 7 background:

If I wanted, I could make a scratch ROM that displays all (2^8)^(256*224) images in sequence (which I might).

I could also use a different emulation mode that uses less colors to make the number less huge. I could even make it only happen in a specific 32x32 box on the screen. I haven't done SNES hacking in a long time, and I forget how many colors are in other graphic modes, so I might look up on that later. I mention mode 7 because that's what I'd still know how to off-hand manipulate graphically. (2^8)^(32*32) is 256^(1024) which is still a shit ton.

If one were to run a program to just cycle through all 16,777,216^(2,073,600) images, within this sequence you would eventually see a picture of your face. You would eventually see this very post on screen. You would see every frame of every movie ever made. You would see every frame of movies that haven't been made yet. You would see every pixel of your face, with a green dot starting at 0,0 going to 0,1 going to 1920, 1080. You would see every potential angle that a picture could be taken of your face. You would see every potential picture of a human being (not to mention lots of porn). You would see everything.

In my simple 32x32 window with 256 colors on the SNES, you would see all of the following eventually:

A white image, a black image, an image with one black pixel in the top left corner, an image with it moved over once, twice, all the way to the end. black and white static, the same static with inverted colors, the same static again, but flipped horizontally, ;3, ;o, C, a "Conway's Game of Life" glider, a sprite sheet of Super Mario World boos, the same sheet zoomed in, the same sheet zoomed in so far that it's all just one color, Cook Kirby, and "Cook Megaman".

The smug boo and spy boo are resprites featured in A Super Mario Thing (ASMT) which was a collab I helped produce. The Smug Boo was drawn by Argumentable and Spy Boo drawn by me. Here is an example of them in video: http://youtu.be/BTTSabLFwJI

Not to mention, every frame of that video would eventually appear in iterations of your computer screen. Also, what if you did a similar trick, but with all possible sounds? An SNES also stores sound data in the form of bytes. If I got into SPC-Assembly, it's possible. It'd probably be much, much huger than all possible images.

Even if I had an 8x8 sized space, that's still (2^8)^(8*8) which is astronomically huge. Even if I restrict it to (2^1)^(8*8) which means it's only black and white, that's still 2^64 or 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. (18 quintillion, 446 quadrillioin, 744 trillion, 73 billiion, 709 million, 551 thousand, and 616 different images.)

At a constant 60fps (frames/images per second) on my emulator, it would take 5,209,497,168,964,272 hours to go through every black and white permutation of an 8*8 space. That's 594,284,413,526 years. My computer would probably break down before that happens. Our solar system will be gone by then.

Oh, did I mention, all the basic data for image display in a Super Mario World rom only takes up 512 bytes of space, thanks to the compression and coding it uses.

-----------------------------------------------
Now just stopping here, you have a pretty amazing concept. It'd be pretty cool if someone were doing this with a super computer right now or something. But let's take it further. Think about it, what does the fact that I was able to calculate 2^(49,766,400) as the total possible images you could show on my monitor show? I almost forgot to inlude this half of the post due to short term memory loss while typing the first half. I doubt most people would think to take it this far either. And just because I want to see if this post gets blatantly copy pasted somewhere else, I'm going to type "Diji" right here. Can't wait.

It means that the total amount is finite. Even though every picture you could think of far exceeds what you can image, it is finite. The maximum number of possible images is limited.

At least in our universe. The same idea so far can apply to http://www.hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=3281155.

Now looking back at my infinity thread, I proposed that within our universe, infinity is impossible.

Planck length is proposed as the shortest possible length. Many of Planck's units are proposed to be the smallest "possible" units of things such as time, or energy.

If you look at a pixel on your computer screen, what is the length of that pixel? You might say, "1 pixel by 1 pixel right?" Wrong. One pixel is 0.264583333mm (millimeters). At least when calculated here. It could vary a bit depending on how big the light itself is for your "pixel".

So that's the length of a pixel. The area would then be 0.264583333^2 millimeters squared. Well, squaring a decimal comes out to 0.07 which is less than the length, so I'm not sure how you would correctly calculate that or if that's supposed to make sense somehow, decimal squaring has always been a weird thing to me. To make this simpler, the length of a pixel is 264.583333 micrometers which makes the area of a pixel 70004.340101388889 micrometers^2. A bit easier to understand right? So the smallest unit of my monitor (a pixel) has that size.

What if we apply that to the smallest unit of our universe? A planck unit, with a length of 1 planck length (1.616199(97)×10^−35 meters which is about 10^-20 times diameter of a proton), and an area of 1 planck length squared.

Looking back at my monitor, there was a finite amount of pixels (1920x1080). There was a finite amount of possible colors. There have been proposed measurements of the total number of atoms in the observable universe (I forget who's number it was, but in any case I remember hearing that people don't take it seriously). Let's just assume for now that the number of atoms in the universe actually is finite. We now have a measurement for the size of the smallest possible units in the universe (planck units) just like we had a measurement of the smallest possible units on a monitor (pixels).

The real universe, however is 3D. Instead of a 2D monitor (x*y), our universe is x*y*z.

I was able to represent a pixel as being the smallest unit on a monitor. I then broke it down to real life by measuring it in units smaller than a pixel, in terms of micrometers. I also gave a break down of the smallest units of the universe as planck units. One important thing I mentioned is that a planck length is many, many times smaller than the diameter of a proton. Throughout history, atoms were once known to be the smallest possible particle in existence. Then protons, neutrons, and electrons were found to be smaller. Then quarks, and now string theory. So, what if our planck unit were the small parts of our strings? Our smallest "pixels".

Based on this, the total possible "configurations" of our universe is finite.

What if I had a super computer, that could calculate its own inner particles in a 3 dimension scale? Perhaps then we could emulate every possible "still-image" of our universe... Not that just going through every 2D image could show us pictures of it already. Of course, this also points out a hole in the idea of exact simulation of reality. A computer composed of particles wouldn't be able to exactly simulate its own particles, nor would a computer within that simulation. When you record the output screen of the same camera you're recording from, you get the cool loop of screens inside screens inside screens. (Funny, I couldn't think of search terms to find a video of this on Youtube). But really, eventually the screens so far in are blurry or dark and are definitely smaller than the outer one (perhaps convex/concave lens would change that). This is why you wouldn't completely be able to simulate reality, and why simulating the human brain would take an extremely huge super computer. (Thank you, Mihiro, for the vid link).

At this point, I highly suggest reading SCP-1190 - Universal Simulator.

Remember how a Super Mario World rom only took up 512 bytes of space? There's an outer entity that can read the data on both how it runs and the graphical data (and musical data). It would be your Super Nintendo, or emulator. Real life...? Think about all the equations scientists find in physics to calculate how things move in relation to each other.

At this point, I also suggest reading SCP-1696 - Dr. Wondertainment’s Little Big-Banger™.

Also of interest: SCP-536 - Physical Law Testing Chamber

If you are familiar with Conway's Game of Life, there is more to elaborate on. Let's say you are running Conway's Game of Life in a 32x32 screen with a block in a middle of the screen. Because of the rules imposed on possible interactions of black pixels, there is only one image possible on the screen. If you place a glider on screen, the only possible images of that "universe" are the separate images of the glider going from one end of the screen to the other. This assumes a closed interval however. What if you had an infinity of pixels for the glider to run across? Then you have an infinite amount of possible images. But back to a closed 32x32 area. Based on your input, there is a finite amount of images, and no other images could have possibly occured. I don't know how to calculate the number of images you can produced in a Conway game of life based off of your input, but the lesson gives interesting implications about our own universe.

As shown in the Wikipedia article, there are other derivations of the Game of Life. Shown on the wiki was one featuring hexagonal cells instead of quadrilateral ones, with more colors than just black and white too. Our own universe could be a much, much more complicated version of Conway's Game of Life.

Here is a video relevant to a common idea I and many others have of the comparison of galaxies to neural clusters and the comparison of solar systems to old models of the atom.

Considering hashlife, perhaps one could make a "Game of Life" for reality and find out what happens at a certain time, just like in the Universal Simulator.

Going back to the idea of a program that steps through every possible image based on an amount of colors and pixels, would there be a reliable way to input a start iteration to see what the image would be like then? Perhaps, like Google image searching in which you can drop in an image file to look for, could you make a program that will try to find the iteration at which your image occurs? For Conway's Game of Life, given an "ending scenario", would there be a finite amount of "starting points" that could have resulted in the finite amount of "ending scenarios"? I think so. It would be a huge amount of starting points and ending scenarios though, considering some ending scenarios can be generated through the same starting points. Of course, there can be no starting points that have different ending scenarios. Another thing in italics to apply to our own universe.

Speaking of a boundless universe, look at the "depth" of a Mandelbrot fractal.

All of this is generated with the same starting algorithm by zooming into smaller parts of its infinite recursion. Mathematically perfect seemingly complex images.

For more information on fractals, see: http://library.thinkquest.org/3288/gnrte1.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set.

-------------------------------
There is one more step to take with all the information thus far. This one will be brief.

What if those smallest units, parts of our strings, could be combined a different way? We know protons, neutrons, and electrons can combine together to make a specific set of atoms, and specific atoms can combine to make a specific set of molecules. There are some atoms that are impossible combinations, that could never happen. But are protons, neutrons, and electrons the only sub-atomic particles one could make out of our "planck particles"? Or are the combinations that make up protons, neutrons, and electrons the only possible combinations?

What could be made then?

One more SCP article for you, SCP-009 - Red Ice.

Creativity and quality are stagnating

Lately I get the feeling that creativity and quality are stagnating.

One reason is capitalism. The way businesses work nowadays leads to making lackluster products that a profitable number of people are okay with despite its flaws. Businesses will not take any extra steps to create something extraordinary if it falls out of their projected profit margin.

Lately I see this a lot in gaming. F2P game markets aside, computer technology is always advancing and becoming more and more powerful. Computers are becoming capable of better graphics, programmers are learning new and better ways to do things, 10gbps internet, etc. MIT is always doing amazing things.

But lately there are few 3D games that I think are making their games super aesthetic.

Team Fortress 2 over time has had its frame rates go lower and lower, where 4 years ago there were no problems.

Blade & Soul has great graphics, yet apparently some people still complain about it not using the latest technology. In any case I think the graphics are great, the combat system is great, but the content is lacking. Questing and exploration in that game are very lacking, almost like a side thought to the game itself. Compared to Runescape, which has a vast amount of very deep quests with lots of detail in each one.

While Runescape has amazing quest stories, exploration, and whatnot, it took a huge hit with its attempt to change its combat system and now it's combat is like an inferior rip-off to other mmorpgs. Aside from that, the system fits nothing in the game because it was plastered on a 10 year old game in a rush and only enemies made after that point were truly adjusted to make sense in the new system.

They also are slow to move on from Java or trying to retain browser support, when lots of PC gaming has moved on to Steam.

Those are just a few games I've played, but I could keep going.

In anime, there seems to be a pattern of anime repeating the same tropes over an over, very few coming out of that bubble to show a unique story. This happens because it's what appeals to people in Japan, things like highschool settings and whatnot. They tend to get repeated because they're simple and popular.

True works of art and innovation, imo, result more often from individuals who spend their free time to create things. Of course, some games and anime are still exceptionally good. But they can always be better.

I want to be immortal.

I live a pretty average life.

I sleep, I eat, I learn, I work.

But I have fun living.

Lately, the only thing that depresses me is the thought of dying. I've been conditioned to have strong control over emotional detachment, and ever since I've always felt like I enjoy things thoroughly and never take things for granted.

I've been conditioned to be able to easily let go of the past for change and adapt as well. At the same time I have very long lasting patience or stamina for what interests me. It takes me a long time to get bored of something I like.

I believe I'm partially capable of that because I don't trap myself with strong expectations of having things last. I don't enjoy something expecting myself to be able to enjoy it every single day for years straight, so I don't get disappointed when something goes dry. In fact, I look forward to when I get interested in it again, as I tend to rotate between major interests.

As a very anti-social-by-choice type of person, I don't expect human attachments to weigh me down in an eternal life. And realistically, if I become immortal, it would be done through anti-aging genetic science. Immortality achieved that way means I could still die any time. And if it's a procedure that can be applied to me, then it could also be applied to whoever I love as well.

I believe that humans will eventually have full control over genetics. Either that, or we will reach the limits of this universe's physical capabilities. We still seem to have a long ways to go before we reach any such limits however.

We can already decide birth gender in babies. We're on the tip of anti-aging and it can only be made safer and safer as time goes on. "Character Creation" for humans is just a start, but genes to control aptitude for intelligence and other skills could be manipulated too.

Some day we might see a world where the majority of people are INTJ or INTP personalities - a world I believe would be much more rational than we are now. I feel as if a majority of humanity has infantile thought patterns and only few people are very rational and mature going into adulthood. The way people act tends to be extremely predictable.

We are still restricted by mental biases imposed by our instinct to live. I read somewhere that men who have problems cheating on girls do so because their instinct is meant to lead them to create more offspring, whereas girl's instinct is more to protect the child. I agree to some extent, but this also points out the ability for human intelligence to intervene in natural.

We can overturn instinct and natural habits such as that. While rabbits or dogs might show similar behavior to those instincts, we've learned a culture of marrying and sticking with one husband and one wife pairings.

But that's not enough on its own. We are currently in a pitfall against human evolution. Natural stagnantation or stasis. Humans have hit a point where we survive against nature through technology. Where beetles adapt for survival by changing colors over various generations of their species so they camoflage better and get eaten less often, we kill or hide from our opposition.

Because our technology can protect us, there's no need for the human itself to evolve and for people to better themselves.

This is where we reach a point of natural stagnation. Something I believe that would best be solved by eventual acceptance of intelligence improving genetic surgery from birth. All those sci-fi movies about genetic super-intelligent children isn't a far stretch.

Even something as simple as disabling emotional anger can go a long way. I believe nothing good comes from anger and that anything you can get out of anger is better achieved by being rational. It mostly only leads to poorly thought hasty decisions and war and hatred.

Heck, genetics could possibly be used to overwrite our survival instincts and how they work to be similar to whatever kinds of couples don't actually end up divorcing in this day and age. It could even eventually stop population growth unless necessary.

As we learn more about the brain, it may be possible to some day cyberize our minds. This will likely take us much longer as the difference between a brain's processing power and a computer's is too different right now.

In any case, I think I could live on for a very long time without tiring of life. In high school during a psychology class a teacher mentioned that most people wouldn't be able to live alone without going insane. Most of the other students agreed, but I didn't.

Of course, I assume a lot of hope for humankind to improve and better themselves. If humans go extinct and I'm the last person alive, what would I be living for? I enjoy life because I love data. The vast amounts of data created by humans.

On that note, I suppose having the ability to induce a self-comatose state for millions of years in order to 'skip time' would be useful as well, if humanity where to go extinct, I could perhaps wait for a new intelligent life to appear.

Debunking EoC: Power Creep and PvP

One of the problems in RS2 was that if level 90 weapons were added to the game, they would end up being way too powerful in PvP. Level 80 chaotics were already hitting constant 400s.

While the Wilderness had self-moderation in which people just run if you use "cheap tactics", balance in the wilderness could have been improved.

What I thought of was having an equipment wilderness level restriction. In other words, at level 1 wilderness, you can only use level 50 armor (runite) and level 75 of lower weapons (most of what you saw in Edgeville was around there).

At level 10 wilderness, you could use level 60 armor and level 77 weapons. In other words, the wilderness level adds to the level of armor you can use and 1/4th of the wilderness level adds to the weapon requirement (rounded down). Spells may or may not be subject to this too.

At level 50 wildy you'd be able to use level 99 armor and 87 weapons. At 60 wildy you'd see level 90s. Anything above that would be deemed too powerful everywhere. Actually, I don't think the Wildy goes up to 60, so the number may need to be adjusted a little bit, like 0.3 instead.

This is of course, a very awkward solution that could cost inventory space if you are required to unequip things, which I am against doing. I would merely mark the items as ineffective and act like their stats are 0 until the correct level is reached.

It may be possible to prevent entering the Wildy at all if your equipment is too strong, requiring you to jump levels by going through canoes, using a game's necklace teleport, or entering through Ardougne's wilderness lever.

On top of that, we could make it to where only a vertical strip of the Wilderness has these rules applied, possibly north of East Varrok.

This keeps an area in which the usual wilderness balance is enforced, despite additions of new and powerful level 90 gear. In RS2, it's entirely possible for people levels lower than you to get kills off you if they're built a certain way, and this might highlight that.

Already in EoC I see people complain about how level 90 weapons destroy people too fast, and level 90 armor makes you too invincible. No matter how you introduce new items in any system, powerful weapons are going to destroy the runite everyone usually PKs with.

This also does push people using bandos armor or similar a little further back into the wilderness, which I think might not be the best thing, but if the unrestricted strip of wilderness is still there, it should still be fine. It could also be world based.

----

In PvP minigames where you can go all-out on gear, power creep didn't seem to be too bad of a problem, because you can go all-out on gear. The addition of minigame hybrid armor also greatly leveled the playing field in my eyes, because it gave anyone good armor for free.

Of course, the more power creep, the more the gap there would be between high level players and low level, but hopefully other stuff can help to mitigate that, such as adequate defense creep.

Debunking EoC: Range's lack of unique gear

Between melee with all these cool special attack weapons and mage with all their unique spells, ranged always seemed a bit... lacking.

And actually, this is one of the things about Runescape that I seem to be the lowest on for creativity.

However, I have seen some interesting ideas from other people.

One example is making bolts able to affix any gem tip from their level to the lowest level.

In other words, instead of Runite bolts being able to have Diamond, Dragonstone, or Onyx, Runite would have access to anything from Opal to Onyx. Mithril bolts would have access to anything from Opal to mithril.

http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Enchanted_bolts

Personally, I would've gone for Opal Rune Bolts (E). Lucky Lightning had a cool graphical effect, sound effect, and the effect hit for 10% more damage.

And I'd totally get Pearl Runite Bolts for Fight Kiln.

Some people might like to use Smite in conjunction with Saphire Runite Bolts, which have a chance to leech prayer points.

Of course, Enchant Bolt may need to be edited to be based on the metal of the bolt instead of the gem.

Truthfully, making use of these already existing effects already adds a lot of fun and unique options for rangers.

----

One thing I would've been interested in seeing was a dragon thrownaxe, and then having the rune thrownaxe special attack moved to the dragon version, and then making the special attack cost 1% or 5% special attack instead of 10-20% or whatever it had. But then make it cost 50% and triple-hit a target if it's a single-way combat zone.

I personally think they could've stood to make throwing knives more obtainable, because those were one of the most fun ranged weapons to use, yet the most expensive. The fact that Vanstrom's fight made them worthwhile to use and fairly easy to get a good number of, was a lot of fun.

Actually, that toxic blowdart in OSRS sounds and looks like quite an interesting weapon.

----

Other than that, I guess I'd say rangers just needed more gear to fit their gaps, which is another one of the good ideas that the EoC did wrong. Things like putting a focus sight on your longbow were cool, albeit didn't make much of a difference in your weapon choice.

----

I'd love to hear other's ideas on giving ranged more interesting options.

Debunking EoC: Being Maxed Trivialized Content

One of the concerns I heard from 'someone' during the EoC betas, was that if you were a high level or maxed player, certain content became trivial or too easy.

That's simple to address. First of all, they higher leveled you are, the more convenient everything should be for you. That's fairly normal.

But back in 2011, Runescape didn't have a lot of things that actually pushed the limits of what players could do. Corporeal Beast and Nex were meant to be unsoloable, but eventually people were finding ways to do that to both.

The solution to the game becoming easier as you max out, is to accept what has become easy and for Jagex to release things that are actually difficult or balanced around a maxed level player with powerful gear.

Actually, I think RS3 tries to do this with EoC bosses nowadays. Things like Fight Kiln were sort of reaching that point, but you could still do that a couple 30-40 levels below being maxed.

The thing is, at least as soon as EoC came out, EoC hugely trivialized all of the PvM in the game. Suddenly all PvM became super easy. I actually theorized that that is part of why some people decided to upvote EoC in surveys, since they could now kill every monster in the game that wasn't really adjusted for EoC combat - which was the entire game.

Infact, I remember them releasing it while not bothering to adjust even the health of monsters in Dungeoneering, so you were pretty much doing 10x damage. Jagex just said they'd fix it later.

Dungeoneering though, was like a master piece for RS2 combat and skilling. Don't get me wrong, doing more than one Dunge for me got extremely tiring because of the effort involved, and I'm the type of player who did Barbarian Assault for full Penance and the Master Trident, and who did Pest Control for full elite voids + deflector + void knight mace. I was a minigame fanatic.

But the way Dunges always worked out... you really had to use all the resources you could get. No matter what your party structure was, apparently the Dunge was designed to fit whatever skill levels you all had.

Most importantly, you really had to scrounge for food, armor, and weapons for the boss, you really had to try for the boss, and you could really really feel it. I mean, really feel the difference in how difficult the boss is based on how well you raided the dungeon or how badly you lazed out on raiding.

It was like the epitome of doing everything you can with everything the game had to offer. Heck, even your choice between stab/slash/crush was very important.

Debunking EoC: Innovative Boss Design: Protection Prayers

Ah the 100% protection prayers.

With the EoC, Jagex removed them after claiming them as being overpowered.

To an extent, you could view it that way. You could turn off damage from one point of the combat triangle. You could devalue food. It over centralized prayer pots and similar.

Actually, they're kind of inconsistent with that. From the RSWiki:

• Protection/Deflection prayers only protect 50% (Except for TzTok-Jad and TokHaar-Jad; that's still 100% because the fight was originally designed for prayer-switching)

But anyway, the thing is, 100% protection is something that nobody ever complained about for 10 years. It's something Jagex only brought up.

Now, as a game developer, I know, it's a good thing to actually notice things like this and seek to change it.

Jagex's problem with it is that it limited what they could do with boss design in the future.

They would have to keep creating bosses that switch attack styles if you pray, or are an exception and can bypass it for no real raisin.

Technically, it's also a problem for dungeon design. It'd be silly if every dungeon were like those Locust Priest dungeons under Sophenam.

That's something I agree with having fixed. Even though players are used to it and are pretty much just fine with it.

However, it's also not entirely necessary to be fixed. OSRS has gotten new bosses and they're still as deadly and unique as ever with 100% protects.

So I've thought of a viable in-between.

You know how protect prayers only have 40% protection against other players?

Make protect prayers have 100% protection against weak/normal enemies and only 40% protection against bosses.

Weak/normal enemies could either be defined as any non-boss enemy, or it could be based on your combat level (since plenty of enemies are above max combat level anyway).

This gives Jagex the room they need for better boss design, but also keeps 100% protection prayers in a way that is a bit easier for people to get their feet wet with.

The good part is, this can be defended easier by making it part of the lore. Saradomin can offer protection for you, but it is limited against other players and very powerful enemies.

If a normal enemy is more powerful (higher level or perhaps multiple levels above) than you, your prayer is ineffective because you yourself are weak.

On top of that, we could say that extra powerful attacks flat-out ignore prayer, much easier with that backstory.

Jad is tricky though. It's true that he's based on 100% protection prayers. Protect prayers actually only affect the chance of the enemy hitting you, not how much damage they deal.

I think a neat solution to Jad would be to make the prayers reduce 40% of his damage, turning the 990 instant kill to at most a hit for 594.

Now you actually have to use some food/healing on him on top of the old fight. It's a bit of an inconvenience and makes him all the more scarier, but it encourages gearing up against him instead of fighting him with red flowers.

In RS2, who or what could hit through protection prayers was pretty inconsistently defined. This would help with that.

Whether or not protect prayers would 'always' reduce damage in PvM, I dunno. They could do that I suppose. I'd be against it myself. I mean, it could also be an "only Jad" thing, in which case it may be considerable to make it 100% only on Jad too.

Making one exception in game design like this is perfectly okay if the players enjoy it and prefer it that way.

Jad could be defended through lore by giving him a backstory where Jad creatures aren't in tune with your human prayers or something, who knows. Maybe it could relate to Elder Gods.

----

The next part of this is to consider the impact of keeping 100% protect prayers everywhere else.

Before EoC, I was able to use protect melee for something like slayer, even if I were prayer flashing, for a limited time before I had to go back to eating sharks.

So in reality, it was a useful tool for prolonguing trips and after it ran out, I still had to use my food.

I was at around 119 combat before the EoC, and I hear higher level players could do slayer trips in one go with maybe a prayer pot or two.

That too, is a good thing, for higher level players to be having a more convenient time doing some things.

In many cases, prayer pots were always more expensive than food, so it was best to use prayer while it's free and then eat until you're almost dead. At least around my level. In some cases at lower levels, you might've considered going full prayer.

Prayer only really devalued food in situations where you really want to camp an area for hours or something. But I don't think that's such a terrible notion.

In many situations, sometimes good armor already made you tanky enough to replace prayer on normal enemies, which was a good thing because at some point you should be taking minimal damage from stuff way weaker than you.

In which case having 100% protect isn't much of a problem, as you could almost 100% tank it anyway. It becomes a convenience.

In some situations, you could Soul Split and end up with more health than you lost. Generally it was only if you were already tanky enough on your own. But in those situations, Soul Split would be considered more "overpowered" than 100% protection. While preventing damage keeps you at the same health, it cannot result in more health like Soul Split could.

Though, aside from combining Soul Split with AoE spells, I thought the 20% heal was very well balanced. And I've already posted about Ancients + Soul Split and how it could've been balanced.

All in all, it would've been nice to see it done this way instead of arbitrarily lowering it to 50% in all PvM situations.

Plus, this way, Jagex could've easily gotten away with 40% vs bosses instead of 50%, giving them a little more room to utilize other defensive concepts.

----

I might add, that Jagex having thrown 50% onto the protect prayers just seemed lazy. They only did it to nerf prayer but didn't put much thought behind it besides trying to figure out if it should be 25% or 50% or 75%.

From a game design perspective it just feels like they're ignoring lore and slapping on numbers without much foresight.

When I try to balance weapons on my Versus Saxton Hale server, to the best of my ability, I try to make buffs/nerfs actually relate to the original stats of the weapon or what the weapon looks like or is mean to do, or related it to the class at least.

I choose 40% for powerful enemies because it makes sense as something a lot of people are already used to in PvP, and it achieves the design goals that Jagex wants, and it doesn't completely get rid of 100% protect like players wanted.

It's an essentially more "outside of the box" way of "meeting in the middle" compared to just setting it to 50% for everything.

----

Another question about Protection Prayer balance is the fact that by level 43 (fairly low) you get 100% protection prayers.

Well, that kind of thing is why I suggested combat level related balancing, where enemies with higher combat levels hit through it.

However, we also have to consider how much that effects other things, like higher level content. For Fight Caves, how would you fight those level 256 or so giant mage enemies?

They're quite accurate and hit constant 400's. And you fight waves of them.

For that reason, I'd rather allow a level 40 to run around with protect melee in monk robes. It's honestly kinda badass where you can decide to use prayer armor + protect prayer to fight enemies. It adds to the lore and feel of the game. Even those 1def monk robe pures do.

Plus when dungeons come along where you have to use protection prayer to survive... you're already negating one form of combat yet the area is still so dangerous?!

What sounds like poor game design on paper, can be worked around, and is actually very compelling towards the lore of the game. How would that one Zanik quest go if Sigmund couldn't use protection prayers against you?

But if we're unsatisfied with level 43 protection prayers, some other commonly suggested ideas are:

Level 43 prot prayers give you 50% protection, but increase up to 100%  by level 99.

Make 3 different sets of protection prayers that protect 20%, 40%, and 100%, unlocked at level 25-43-65 or so. Do note that I'm just typing random numbers as I go, I didn't go look at a prayer book.

Make protection prayer stronger if you get attacked my multiple enemies at once, but stay weak in 1v1 or something. Someone posted this on the RS forums and it sounded a bit more poetic there.

Debunking EoC: Unused Weapons

One of the concerns the EoC tried to rebalance was scimitar dominance. Scimitars were considered better than all of the other "metal weapons" due to their speed and slash.

Jagex's solution to scimitars being better than maces, warhammers, longswords, daggers, shortswords, battleaxes, etc was to make them all the same. Make them all have the same DPS. Make the only difference between be whether or not it is stab or slash or crush based in terms of monster weakness.

At the same time, they removed the stab, slash, and crush stats from the items and replaced it with an attack rating.

That was entirely unnecessary.

In the Old School Runescape forums, I've seen two good threads about how to rebalance them for RS2's combat system.

One person suggests adding a sort of perk based on the lore of the items, like making maces get bonus damage based on your prayer points or making maces able to smite and remove 1 prayer. See: Rejuvenate Bad Weapons

Another person suggests making most of the weapons have the same attack speed, and then rebalancing their stats based on that. See: All Weapons at Scimitar Speed

After reading those and giving them feedback, I gave them my own suggestion, which I'll paste here.

First of all, Jagex needs to make monster's defensive stats transparent. I think EoC did that? Good on them for that, but they use the new lame mmo copy pasted stat system.

Design weapon stats like so:

Scimitar: 10 slash, 0 stab, 0 crush
Warhammer: 0 slash, 0 stab, 10 crush
Shortsword: 0 slash, 10 stab, 0 crush

The problem there is that a rune longsword has the same stab as a rune shortsword, even thought the shortsword is a faster speed.

Longsword: 8 slash, 7stab, 0 crush
Mace: 0 slash, 7 stab, 8 crush
Battleaxe: 8 slash, 0 stab, 7 crush

"Unique" weapons:
Dagger: 5 slash, 6 stab, 0 crush, 1.8 attack speed (as op suggested) or faster as a fun rapid attack weapon.
Spear: 7 slash, 7 stab, 7 crush, 5 def - The all rounder type of weapon with some defensive capability (as op suggested)
Halberd: 9 slash, 7 stab, 0 crush - Keep it at it's own special "longer reach" melee weapon status. However to make it less unused, maybe it could use a little speed bonus.
2 Handed Sword: 11 slash, 0 stab, 9 crush - Pretty much works as it is now

Now, some weapons may be worth equalizing the speeds of the weapons for the trade-off of making the weapon's strengths and weaknesses more prominent or important. But some should still have different attack speeds.

As the wiki mentions about longsword vs scimitar, scimmy is 25 hits/minute and longsword is 20 hits/minute. It adds up over time. Because Jagex isn't transparent about how accuracy and damage amounts work, we can only guess as to how the stats would have to change to get them equal or into a position of "having tradeoffs against using one or the other".

Anyway, the point of weighing stats like this, is to give people opinions like this:

Player A: Oh I like to use Scimmy + Mace to cover the 3 melee weaknesses cause I've been using scimmy for years.

Player B: I roll Scimmy + Warhammer + Shortsword because I'm l33t min/maxer. (I personally would be that kinda player).

Player C: Spear is nice for inventory space, plus I don't have to worry about a shield.

Player D: The new shortsword's awesome, it's like having a lower level CRapier, though I still bring a battle axe to cover the slash/crush enemies.

Player E: I like to main warhammer now that it's good... and longsword hits hard too!

Player F: Dude the new dagger is like melee throwing knives now it's so much fun

----------

In reality, the stat suggestions I just made, are already how the weapons are sort of designed in RS2.

I say Jagex should at least be transparent about monster's defensive stats, because it opens up Jagex to a load of suggestions on what their actual defenses should be or how to alter defense stats for things in order to make weapon choice more prominent.

Yes, this is what EoC tried to do. But they did it in an extremely lazy way, by giving all 3 points of the combat triangle 3-4 different types of attacks, where melee had stab/slash/crush, mages had air/water/earth/fire, and rangers had... bolts vs arrows or something.

Mage and range don't need that variety. Jagex trying to make mage elements useful or bullet type useful was merely the result of them trying to make the classes the same... that's bad game design. I have many ideas for making mage and range more unique like melee is and I have them on a blog too, I might post them later.

Anyway, making the 3 melee weaknesses more prominent is a good way to make weapon choice a little more important. But it really does call for editing stats of monsters (Assuming they really are slash biased or stab biased or whatever).

I only remember things like Rock Crabs mattering for crush weapons for example...

At the same time it was good that the casual player could just use 1 type of melee weapon everywhere and not be /forced/ to min/max in some way.

We want it to be an advantage, not an overwhelmingly better choice.

The EoC didn't need to happen. This could have been applied to RS2.

Pre-EoC Runescape Wishlist

Here's a wishlist I made when Legacy was about to come out, what I actually wanted from Legacy.

Actually, this .txt I found from back then which is an archive of some forum thread(s) that are gone now.

Keep in mind, I was still trying to give EoCers their own option to stay as well back in the Legacy release days, which I really care about less now that EoC is dying on its own.

Good community trumps ad-hoc attempts to fix game balance.

Also note that this post will be extremely unformatted until I work on it some more, it's copy pasted from the Runescape forum.

------------------============[Main Proposal]============------------------

Old HP/Armour system
Old Inventory &amp; Prayer Sprites
Old special attacks
138 maxed combat, tweaked to make range/mage count more (pretty much already in effect)
Staff + Shield
Old Ancients/God spells
Old style weapon stats. Magic, ranged, stab, slash, crush, strength. Instead of whatever the heck EoC armour/weapons are now.
Stab/Slash/Crush/Defend | Quick/Accurate/Long | Mage/Mage+Def attack styles.
Poisoned weapons
Dominion Tower gloves (Especially Goliath - Give spellcaster its own spell like the polypore staff).
Same player saves (no need to restart completely like for 07RS)
Make the action bar optional for skilling only.

Here's the big part:

Re-stat the 2013 items to be like the old system, keep the re-balanced gear
Keep dual wielding (just don't make it OP or more viable than everything else)
Old models, and more importantly - animations

Edit: I underestimated how much I dislike the new models. I just logged in and yeah, I'd really like to see Jagex remake them to appear like the old models some day.

Optional:
100% prayer protection.
Sara brews, or rather, an alternative to"stacked healing items"

Other stuff to keep from the EoC:
Food/Potion Balancing.

-----

"But the old models don't support new animations from solomon or dual wielding"

Jagex was able to make completely new models that support being animated in more ways than in the past. They can definitely make new models that mimick the old ones, but use the new animation system. From this point, they could make it a cosmetic choice as to how your player is animated while it walks/attacks things. I think the old animations are funny/nostalgic and would still use them. Doing this would also mean less work needed to keep new emotes/animation overrides.

I do agree that this is a lot of work. But making EoC in the first place was a lot of work and not a lot of paying attention to how much players approve of it.

Edit: At least make old animations over the new models an option as an animation override.

"But Jagex can't bring back the old stats or system"

They were able to completely change them to something new, they most definitely can bring them back. Even if they don't have the stats recorded, they can re-implement the old system.

Considering they were able to re-instate 07RS, I'm fairly certain that they do have a save of the game from what it was like pre-EoC, as well as all of the item stats.

"Dual wielding sucks and doesn't fit Legacy and thus shouldn't be part of it"

Let's say EoC was never a thing, and Jagex just decided to release dual wielding on its own. Would you feel the same way? Let's assume it gets released to be just as viable as sword+shield or 2h or something.

IMO, they should make off-hand weapons not be offhand, and just let you choose what hand to hold it in. At the same time, allow shields to be carried in the other hand.

My suggestion for dual wields in pre-EoC combat is to make them like darts. Weaker hits but faster. Unlike darts, they'd probably be less accurate too.

"But Legacy is worthless, EoC is superior"

Opinions have little bearing in a discussion, especially with the results of the survey Jagex quoted saying otherwise.

Not to mention, the goal of this suggestion is to bring back Legacy with the main goal of the EoC to rebalance the combat triangle.

(In my opinion, old combat was more exciting/faster in terms of PvP).

"But your idea is basically throwing away the EoC"

My suggestion is not saying EoC should be completely removed, Jagex would still provide the option to use abilities and RS3 animations if you want.

Though, the main thing I don't care about seeing stay are abilities and the new form of armour stats.

As suggested, a choice between RS2 and RS3 animations would help a lot. And with Legacy, Jagex is already giving you the choice between old/new damage scaling and hitsplats.

Abilities do not require the new form of item stats in any way, nor does rebalancing the classes in the game. This can be done with math alone.

If my idea sounds still sounds like it's "throwing away EoC", please post and tell me how so I can think of a way to satisfy both sides better.

-----

The EoC isn't a superior system if it has less than half of the player base enjoying it. The best way to run a game business is to release content that players agree with and enjoy.

So far there are two huge things that Jagex forced onto us that players largely didn't like. Squeal of Fortune, and the EoC. (Note: Just because you like it, or it does address some issues, doesn't mean it's perfect or even better).

Imagine if things went a different way:

What if they didn't release abilities, change the interface, change models/animations when they came up with "the EoC".

What if the big update was just the introduction of dual wielding, shield bows, wands, more books, more armour for mage/range, and the buffing of ranged/mage so that you can use both just as commonly as melee used to be in the game? Along with mage/range armour being rebalanced to have better defence (mage armour being made a little better against melee I guess).

In other words, all they did, was release a ton of new items at once in a way that completely changes the balancing of the combat triangle to be how they wanted it be?

Make runes easier to obtain or spells cost less runes. Arrows too.

----

If the EoC had gone down that way, a lot less people would have left the game because it's essentially still the old system. The only difference is that other parts of the combat triangle would be more widely useable. You aren't stuck with using melee for 90% of everything because ranged and even mage are almost just as affordable.

I feel as if that would have kept many of the game's veterans while addressing the real issue Jagex was trying to tackle with the EoC.

You'd still have all the PvP gimmicks, interface people prefered, etc etc. The wilderness might seem crazy at first and people would say mage/range is overpowered until it comes to the point where it's actually an even mix of people using whatever part of the triangle they want. You'd still have hybridding as it used to be as well.

What makes the game go backwards are how the business decides to implement things and the player's satisfaction rate. EoC was too huge of a change and too different. I was a very loyal member and even continued paying during half a year long absences because I was supporting a game I knew I'd always come back to. Ever since the EoC came out, it was like they closed the game so I stopped paying and lost the $5 membership I had from so long ago.

Also, 200 wasn't good for how it hid stats. It's nice to see the new formula brings mage/range higher now that they're more prominent in the combat triangle. I would still much prefer that the game was just updated with a bunch of armour/weapon changes. I do agree that it'd be easier to make sense of if the level cap was 140 or 145, but that just doesn't really fit Runescape well. Weird numbers are interesting to this playerbase.

-----

Basically, the only thing that was needed to rebalance damage between classes was to change numbers and fill some gaps with items for mage/range.

The animations of the game are a completely different problem.

"Old animations are boring and shouldn't be supported!"

Yea, a lot of people thought the old animations were slow paced, unexciting, or boring. In a similar way, the old system of combat felt that way.

However, I do not think that a need for newer/better animations warranted the introduction of abilities. But for fixing the "pace" of combat, who knows. The polls already indicated that abilities weren't a better alternative. This is why Jagex is making Legacy in the first place.

Personally, the old system of combat was faster paced for me, especially with hybridding in PvP. Though agreeably PvM was afky, I preferred that. Though bossing was also fast paced/exciting cause I only got to level 109+10 pre-EoC so it was hard enough to solo GWD stuff. EoC didn't introduce faster paced combat and only an annoying need for button spam for me.

Not to mention, as suggested before, make the animations optional.

In any case, I agree with Coli's feedback thread about Revolution.

QFC: 360-361-249-65280878-92-329782912 | 10.3 - Revolution

If we end up needing an ability macro, it means that the system has failed.

-----

I notice some EoC supporters saying to just scratch Legacy. Don't offer it at all.

I kinda consider these to be troll posts.

As much as I'd like EoC to be completely scratched, Jagex already introduced it and some people have already grown to like it. The community is split half and half and we can't just completely throw away either one. We already saw what happened due to Jagex throwing away the old system before considering to bring it back in some ways now.

I'm trying to think of what to say in terms of keeping abilities. I guess I'd say it'd be like what Jagex has already promised for Legacy where you can choose between the two systems. But rather than EoC being the "main system", EoC becomes the "dressed up system" that needs to become compatible with Legacy. Not Legacy becoming compatible with the Eoc.

In terms of bossing, I'm not sure why Jagex thinks abilities are important to making fresh/new boss ideas.

I can already think of boss gimmicks they haven't/have hardly used. For example, breakable parts on bosses. Make a huge boss with different sections that can be attacked and broken separately to reveal weaker parts. At least, make more bosses like that than that one tzhaar mole/armadillo thing. Make stuff like Vanstrom even.

Speaking of Vanstrom, put him in the Dominion Tower.

-----

Miscellaneous Threads I support:

QFC: 355-356-981-65284809 - EoC is not EoC

- One point he mentions is that crits do not suffice to replace mage/strength bonuses. If Legacy could be made like I suggest in this thread, I think that would suffice.

- I'm also in support of pretty much all of his suggestions.

QFC: 355-356-156-65288904 - LegacyCombat - Dress up of EoC

- I agree that I want to see more be done and that I'm worried that it will feel like Jagex trying to dress up momentum and say it's bringing back old combat. The old animations were also a large part of the feel of old combat to me.

QFC: 15-16-593-65345051 - New prayer icons + Legacy?

 - Not only do I prefer how they were pixelated before, but they're also more crisp/easier to tell apart. The new ones look like purple blurs and I actually have to look closely to tell if I'm using protect from melee or ranged which is annoying.

It also does not make sense for the activation of deflect curses to play the animation of you actually deflecting attack, when that is not even happening. I disliked that addition. Same thing for the activation animations added to sap/etc.

QFC: 355-356-53-65340350 - Legacy details

- Please, please do something about the animations when you implement Legacy, even if you don't do the whole re-statting thing I suggested.

QFC: 360-361-621-65287493 - Old animations, Legacy Combat

Second reply in the thread: "Make old animations available in Solomon store"

But for free.

QFC: 299-300-79-65346970 - What we want in Legacy

- "Strength skill matter again". I don't actually know how badly EoC changed that, but I definitely want to see it matter. I saw a suggestion to make it count towards mage/range, which sounds OK. Make it universal like defense.

- See next page for dual wield idea.

QFC: 16-17-258-65347893 - Legacy - PvP revival

QFC: 16-17-733-65348060 - My thouhts on legacy

-----

--------------------============[Disclaimer]============--------------------

I know Legacy is meant to bring the old combat system back but not a copy of Runescape like it was pre-EoC.

I know Jagex hasn't even opened that beta yet, but I know they're working on it and can't wait to see if it's done adequately or not.

I know they stated they won't bring back old item stats. I can still hope. This is what I was saying in 2014. Now it's 2016.

One of the things that worries me most about Legacy are the animations which as I've said, were a big part of the pre-EoC feel to me, as well as that interface switching and hybridding stuff.

Other than that, was also the impact of things like your 'max hit' and every individual hits. I believe I linked a thread talking about that as well. It's not just EoC's hitsplats are bad, but the feel of them is too because it turns everything more into the concept of "DPSing" and "spread out/damage over time" even for normal attacks.

Compared to Runescape where you can feel the weight of every hit more. It's hard to explain I suppose and you'd either get it or not. One good example was the feel of using special attacks. This is my other big worry as to how Legacy will be. Pre-EoC you felt heavy and powerful. RS3 makes me feel like darts, which is a bad restriction to me. Whether I'm using a 2H, sword/shield, or dual wield, nothing feels like it has impact.

I think mostly the hitsplats/damage amounts/animations are to blame largely for that. 2H swords used to feel heavy. As well as mauls. Making them use the same animation, as well as the animations themselves, just makes both feel weak.

Prayer feels less powerful. I can't "feel" the bonus of turmoil or piety at all anymore for example. It doesn't increase that impact feel anymore in the EoC. I've seen others complain that large 1k-9k hits contributes to this loss of impact. Level 85-99 str is a pointless blur.

-----

I eagerly await to see what Legacy will be like and whether it'll be satisfying, and to give feedback to hopefully get it as close to something I can enjoy again as possible.

Proposal for Legacy dual wields:

It'd certainly be nice to keep, but we want shields to still have their usage and other stuff have trade-offs.

As mentioned by QFC: 299-300-79-65346970 Xader_Master:

- Dual wielding would add 1/4 str bonus and work like defenders

(Dragon Scimitar: Str Bonus = 66 + Off hand Dragon Scimitar = 16.5)

My suggestion:

- Overall accuracy drops significantly, but you attack as fast as darts. Your max hit is also penalized.

Magic "dual wielding" is unnecessary altogether imo. Just make mage books be for offensive bonuses like before and give them rune-saving capabilities or other special abilities.

For dart-like cast speed, just release cool new spells or something like the staff of armadyl that affects cast speed with some sort of magic penalty like -40% magic modifier to counter the cast speed. Or rather, make wands become the fast cast speed type weapon, while keeping staves single handed.

And don't allow multi-class dualwielding to be effective. Like having a sword and crossbow. They should negate each other's effectiveness.

Also instead of off-hands, we could just decide what hand to wield something in.

Personally, I would limit dual wielding to melee. Rangers don't really need it either, unless Jagex some day releases flat out guns.

Melee's already had one dual wield for years pretty much... Torag's hammers.

Proposal for Legacy action bar:

Legacy users don't like abilities, but that doesn't mean everyone will dislike having an action bar type thing for skilling.

Two immediate options come to mind:

1. Allow the action bar to be toggled on/off (off meaning, completely hidden - no enable button visible on screen or something) and only useable for skilling.

2. Just allow hotkeys to be bound to items in the inventory and give the option for the inventory to be like a cross between the action bar and an inventory.

3. Both of the above would be a nice way to satisfy people in the middle of EoC and Legacy.

-----

http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Maximum_Hit_Formula

Expand pre-EoC soaking as a part of defence, or a combination of defence and HP (like melee was a combination of atk and str).

Having high HP gives you some inherent soaking.

Having high DEF gives you static defence bonuses and also contributes to inherent soaking.

EoC players have a max of 9900 HP and pre-EoC have 990. Higher defence leading to the bigger portion of soaking or something.

Let's say have level 50 HP gives 5% soaking. In Legacy terms, it's like you're actually scaling your health to be...

500 x 1.05 = 525 "total health".

In other words, if you have 500 HP and 5% inherent soaking, you would have to be hit for 525 to get one hit KOed. Hitting 500 will be soaked to 475 and the player survives with 25 hp.

This can be used to introduce balancing that protects players in pre-EoC from new 90 level+ gear, depending on what soaking values Jagex implements.

As I mentioned on my legacy thread I was going to look at pre-EoC damage calculation and try and come up with stuff from there. I hear one problem of level 90 pre-EoC weapons was that you'd be able to one-hit people, and DPS rates would be too high. All it takes to fix that is some equivalent scaling of HP/DEF with higher level weapons.

Commonly used abbreviations:

RSC = Runescape Classic

07RS = OSRS/Oldschool Runescape

RS2 = Pre-EoC Runescape

RS3 = Post-EoC Runescape, before Legacy

Legacy = Combined RS2+RS3, EoC/RS3 bias on updates/balance/features/viability

RSFIX = My proposal = Combined RS2+RS3, looks like RS2 but has many of RS3's item/combat rebalancing, similar to Legacy but with RS2 bias, RS3 being the "optional skin, though more effective due to abilities"

Classes = Melee/Range/Mage

Old system = Combat system in RS2

New system = EoC system / Combat system in RS3

Fixed system = My proposal

"But changing stats isn't really necessary"

It's true that you can balance things both ways.

This thread is basically taking aspects of the EoC I didn't dislike and applying it to RS2, though some aspects like this are ones that I could probably tolerate.

Changing the stats on equippables is only a small part of "changing stats".

The bigger picture is changing how the EoC put more emphasis on gear than your actual player stats. (I would like confirmation that this is the case, because it's what I heard from the like/dislikes of EoC thread I made). Or in other words, it's like reverting to RS2 and balancing the old combat system instead of changing to a new combat system.

Here are the balancing differences between RS2 and RS2.

RS2:

Stab/Slash/Crush/Range/Mage Atk+Def & prayer/summoning/mage%/str stats on equippables.

Melee had Accurate/Aggresive/Controlled/Defensive.

The difference was what skills you get EXP in, aggresive commonly being the best option ignoring EXP.

Range had Accurate, Rapid, and Defensive.

Rapid was commonly the best option, ignoring EXP.

Mage had Normal and Defensive casting. Normal giving mage exp only and defensive giving Mage+Def EXP.

Normal was commonly the best option.

These best options had the problem of making other options pointless/unused.

Melee weapons had additional depth relating to their Stab/Slash/Crush stats.

Mage armour: Worst defense stats against anything (generally). I believe their highest def stat was against mage itself.

Range armour: Best defense against mage. Average against melee and I believe it was weak/average against ranged.

Melee armour: Best defense against melee and ranged. Generally negative against magic.

PvP generally balanced, with some overpowered things regarding high level content.

PvM was melee biased. It was simply no cost over time to use a sword for stuff like slayer, compared to consuming arrows and especially runes.

RS3:

I really need to read up on what it was changed to.

Please correct me (I'm probably remembering wrong).

For equippables:

An atk/def stat.

Armour type (strong/neutral/weak against XYZ class)

Crits for melee/mage/range

Stab/Slash/Crush became enemy weaknesses in PvM or something. I'm not sure how it's different than RS2. Maybe it's not.

Stab/Slash/Crush became independent from Accurate/Aggresive/Controlled/Defensive.

The stats you gain EXP in became independent of both of those as well.

Mage made elemental weakness more apparent, similarly to stab/slash/crush. Air/Water/Earth/Fire.

Or something like that? All I remember is that Jagex added a bunch of weaknesses to monsters for PvM across the world.

They also made ancients elemental and removed some other god spells, until recently.

Not sure how it worked with ranged.

They also introduced dual wield / sword+shield / 2h as a standard for all classes (homogenization).

Dual wield/2H were stated to produce the same DPS during the beta, thus were an aesthetic choice. Sword+Shield was meant to be for tanks.

Looking at some recent threads, I hear that it's become the case that specific abilities have become optimal for certain reasons that introduces an undesireable bias towards them.

Effective stats of weapons are based on the equip requirements, or tier of the item.

I keep hearing that strength was especially hit hard. Enough that some people quoted "removing the skill".

It's kind of hard to sum up what the EoC changes, when it is a work in progress in itself.

Goals of the EoC:

Promote "Combat Triangle"

Balance classes

Remove "Melee Bias" (mostly a PvM issue)

Make combat "less boring/stale"

I personally dislike the homogenization of the classes. E.g. I like being able to achieve an arcane necklace or korasi sword and have it be viable everywhere even when I'm maxed. I liked the differences between classes in RS2.

Example comparison:

RS3 armour all became like RS2's minigame hybrid armour.

Damage rates between classes were made near-identical.

Damage increase primarily comes from tiers of gear instead of skills.

Armour has its own HP attached to it.

Balancing classes lost the old variety inherent to classes.

Seemingly, they're trying to revive/release hybridding stuff.

What I aim to do is all of the following:

1. "Revert" the game to RS2

2. Keep RS3 items, such as level 90 gear that would be OP in RS2

3. Keep RS3 class rebalancing, especially for PvM

4. Address PvP issues from RS2

Stat comparison RS2 vs RS3

Full rune armour:

Full mystic armour:

Full black dhide:

Full bandos:

Full armadyl:

Full Pernix:

Full Torva:

Full Virtus:

Full Battlemage:

Full Trickster:

Full Vanguard:

Dragon scimitar:

Whip: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Abyssal_whip

Korasi sword: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Korasi%27s_sword

Chaotic maul: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Chaotic_maul

Chaotic rapier: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Chaotic_Rapier

CHaotic longsword: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Chaotic_longsword

Saradomin Sword: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Saradomin_Sword

Godsword: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Godsword

Barrelchest anchor: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Barrelchest_anchor

Magic shortbow:

Magic longbow:

Crossbow:

Mystic staff: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Mystic_staves

Staff of light: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Staff_of_Light

Ancient staff: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Ancient_staff

RS3 items as if they were in RS2:

Adamant longsword: lv.40

Style: slash

Dmg: 490

Acc: 628

Stab: 20

Slash: 29

Strength: 31

Rune longsword: lv.50

Style: Slash

Dmg: 612

Acc: 850

Stab: 38

Slash: 47

Strength: 49

+18

+18

+18

Dragon longsword: lv.60

Style: Slash

Dmg: 735

Acc: 1132

Stab: 58

Slash: 69

Strength: 71

+20

+22

+22

+38

+40

+40

Chaotic longsword: lv.80

Style: Slash

Dmg: 980

Acc: 1924

Stab: 107

Slash: 124

Strength: 120

+49 23 + 26

+55 26 + 29

+49 23 + 26

Drygore longsword: lv.90

Style: Slash

Dmg: 1102

Acc: 2458

Stab: 137

Slash: 154

Strength: 154

+30

+30

+34

HP*(1-(DEF/100))

Suggestions that could just be implemented in Legacy.

Spell costs:......|RS2..................................|RS3.............|

------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------|

Air strike        |1 air, 1 mind                        |1 air...........| This was eventually changed to 1 air for RS2 as well

Water strike      |1 air, 1 mind, 1 water               |1 air, 1 water

Air surge         |7 air, 1 death, 1 blood              |5 air

Water surge       |7 air, 10 water, 1 death, 1 blood    |5 air, 5 water

Fire surge        |7 air, 10 fire, 1 death, 1 blood     |5 air, 5 fire

Smoke rush        |1 air, 1 fire, 2 chaos, 2 death      |3 air, 1 death

Smoke barrage     |4 air, 4 fire, 2 blood, 4 death      |5 air, 2 blood

Blood rush        |1 blood, 2 chaos, 2 death            |3 fire, 1 death

Blood barrage     |4 blood, 4 death                     |5 fire, 2 blood

Ice rush          |2 water, 2 chaos, 2 death            |3 water, 1 death

Ice barrage       |6 water, 2 blood, 4 death            |5 water, 2 blood

Applying this to RS2 would have really highlighted how OP ancients can be due to making them much more common.

Price and the work needed to unlock it are not always an adequate excuse for something to be extremely powerful against other stuff.

So what would have to be done to balance these being more widespread?

????The change to defence and soaking should help.

And for people who like to use special attacks as KO weapons, we can do something like decreasing how much the opponent gets to soak from special attacks.

For example, take the attacker's attack level into the equation.

99ATK+99STR vs 99HP+99DEF

990 HP, soak 33% from dmg >= (990*0.01 + floor(ATKLVL*1.5) = 158)

200+100+50+50=400 | 42+0+0+0 * 0.66 = 28+0+0+0 | 186+100+50+50=386

308+154+87+77=626 | 150+0+0+0 * 0.66 = 99+0+0+0 | 257+154+87+77=575

400+200+100+100=800 | 342+42+0+0 * 0.66 = 226+28+0+0 | 384+186+100+100=770

640+320+160+160=1280 | 482+162+2+2 * 0.66 = 318+107+1+1 | 476+265+159+159=1059

We could also do ATKLVL*2 and it'd be near a 200 minimum like before.

Well the old stats looked like this:

CLS:

-Offense-

Stab: 107

Slash: 124

Crush: -2 (boy do I miss flowers)

Magic: 0

Range: 0

-Defense-

Stab: 0

Slash: 0

Crush: 0

Magic: 0

Range: 0

Summoning: 0

-Soak-

Melee: 0%

Range: 0%

Mage: 0%

-Other-

Prayer: 0

Strength: 120

Ranged Strength: 0

Mage %: 0

I agree EoC does simplify it in a good way, aside from creating completely new stats for everything.

Class: Melee

Style: Slash

Damage: 980

Accuracy: 1924

Armour: 0

Life: 0

Prayer: 0

Crit melee: 0%

Crit range: 0%

Crit mage: 0%

I think I'm going to need to login again to confirm how the new system works, but iirc from beta your class is determined by your most prominent armour... or weapon combo? Or something. Your defense against other classes was based on the combat triangle.

They could do what you just mentioned, and if we're really lucky, scale down numbers anyway lolo.

I'm not sure how true this statement is, but EoC beta made it feel like you can't mix and match without ruining things. I think that's one thing I miss a lot about the old system. You could wear full black dhide but melee in it. Whereas (at least in beta), wearing black dhide made your class ranger or something and wasn't synonymous with your melee weapon. I'm not really sure what it's like now.

RS2:

Melee armour gave no offensive stats and great melee/range def. Melee weapon offense was pretty high anyway.

Mage armour gave mage offensive stats and really weak defense in general.

Range armour gave range offense and average melee and strong mage defense.

RS3 (at time of beta at least):

All armour became something like the RS2 minigame hybrid armour and decided your class. Weak to one other class, neutral to the same class, and effective against the last class. No armour had offensive bonuses.

Or something like that. I'll go look up what the system is like now cause I completely forgot lol.

I suppose if what I remember is correct, I want to remove how EoC does classing. As far as I can tell, I guess this hybrid update in this beta is meant to address that or something.

Back to damage soaking:

Constitution not only increases HP, but also increases a certain amount of damage you can soak.

Defense increases your buffer zone for soaking. At level 1 defence, only hits greater than 99% of your HP will be soaked. At level 99 def, hits greater than 1% get soaked.

I think a max of ~33% soaking is a fair standard.

So you can soak HPLVL/3.

10 HP

1 DEF

100HP, soak 3% from dmg >= 99

50 HP

1 DEF

500 HP, soak 17% from dmg >= (500*0.99 = 495)

500 dmg, 5 dmg gets soaked by 17% (=4.15). Becomes 499 dmg.

50 HP

50 DEF

500 HP, soak 17% from dmg >= (500*0.5 = 250)

Take 100 dmg, 0 is eligible for soaking.

Take 500 dmg, 250 is soaked 17%. 250*0.83=207.5 | Dmg taken = 458

Take 990 dmg, 740*0.83=614.2 | Dmg taken = 864 (you died anyway)

99 HP

99 DEF

990 HP, soak 33% from dmg >= (990*0.01 = 10)

Take 100 dmg, 90 is soaked 33%. 90*0.66=59.4 | Dmg taken = 69

Take 500 dmg, 490*0.66=323.4 | Dmg taken = 333

Take 990 dmg, 980*0.66=646.8 | Dmg taken = 657

And for people who like to use special attacks as KO weapons, we can do something like decreasing how much the opponent gets to soak from special attacks.

For example, take the attacker's attack level into the equation.

99ATK+99STR vs 99HP+99DEF

990 HP, soak 33% from dmg >= (990*0.01 + floor(ATKLVL*1.5) = 158)

200+100+50+50=400 | 42+0+0+0 * 0.66 = 28+0+0+0 | 186+100+50+50=386

308+154+87+77=626 | 150+0+0+0 * 0.66 = 99+0+0+0 | 257+154+87+77=575

400+200+100+100=800 | 342+42+0+0 * 0.66 = 226+28+0+0 | 384+186+100+100=770

640+320+160+160=1280 | 482+162+2+2 * 0.66 = 318+107+1+1 | 476+265+159+159=1059

This achieves the EoC goal of making defense important, but you can still have pures if you want. Of course they'll still be many ways less effective than true mains.

Additionally, you can remove soaking from armor to clean up pre-EoC's stat interface a little.

Ranged would need more special attacks probably.

Magic is already pretty devastating in PvP.

Dunno if it really needs its own form of special attacks when you can use ancients and whatnot.

Eh, there was still combat triangle in RS2. But it came more in the form of hybridding in terms of PvP. You'd be at a disadvantage sticking to one class. That's one of the things bigger things I enjoyed about the old system, now that I think of it. Most of what I was doing before I quit was playing minigames in the hybrid armour and switching either between two or all three styles.

That's one huge thing that this Legacy won't bring back, that actually reverting to the old system with many of EoC's balancing concepts would.

It would have been nice to see an even mix of melee/range/mage/hybrid users in PvP minigames like soul wars, instead of a majority of melee only players and some hybridders. The rune cost reduction from EoC would've probably been enough to do that. People not bridding would be doing so just to play casually and bridders were just try hards. At the very least, revert to the old system and add more negative stats as a way to make bridding less extremely effective, but still allow it to be better than using one style.

And yeah, the triangle pretty much wasn't there in PvM.

[quote id=360-361-745-65348630-63-330871569]

THAT'S WHAT JAGEX DID! Ranged armour for melee give lower accuracy...

You just reinvented the wheel...[/quote]

... Obviously they did that in the EoC. And I just told you that could have been done in RS2.

"copy-paste pre-EoC and then try to squeeze EoC with it"

That's exactly the same as using the old system, with/without specific aspects of the EoC (like abilities).

"The point of soaking is to make it depending on armour not stats..."

You're right that it's an oversight to allow players to soak damage without any armour on.

Solution, make the skill-based soaking only apply with armour on.

Each piece of armour gives you access to a portion of your soaking.

"You don't care about balance, you only care about nostalgia."

Despite clearly offering to throw away many aspects of the old system for the new system. Your argument, on the other hand, is becoming quite emotional.

I care about both. It's definitely possible to balance the old system.

I've already admitted various times to what things I only care about for nostalgia and what things I want to see balanced or retain from the EoC. 

"In no other way can pre-EoC be incorporated within EoC if everything gets reverted (including how armour works).

I don't understand what you're saying.

I don't see how it's impossible for Jagex to modify their own game.

"Combat triangle will stay."

I never suggested it should be removed...?

"Legacy is not pre-EoC."

I've not stated otherwise...?

"The point of pures was not to work in all PvP minigames, only Wilderness."

I already alluded to that when I mentioned pure vs pure combat and pure vs evenly leveled low level mains while quoting suggestions to make evenly leveled players better or on par with pures.

"Sadly, you ask for armour to be reduced even further and making it even more easy to pure."

I mentioned in the other thread, to make the soaking thing also armour dependent. Thus armour wouldn't be reduced.

"It isn't a simple fix"

And yet here I came, saying that it's a simple fix to keep the 100-990 HP ratio, keep lv.90 items balanced, perform this balance better than pre-EoC soaking+nex armour, go one step towards defeating the purpose of pures, retain the important of special attacks as KO weapons, etc.

And I gave you the math.

The mechanics behind them are definitely not unknown to Jagex. They can always take a suggestion and try to do something with it themselves.

Not to mention, it was possible to approximate your max hit fairly closely (and thus average damage and dps).

Besides, does it matter if old mechanics are unknown if we're replacing aspects of them?

"Anchoring Defence and Constitution is easily fixed"

And my suggestion also attributes to nearly a 50/50 split in terms of importance.

"How will you achieve that? How will you make sure that a pure and a main of the same combat level can fight and the pure will definitely lose?"

I already have.

Pures:

High offense

No defense, unable to equip good armour, get nearly no soaking

Mains:

Normal leveled stats, gain the soaking benefit that I already anchored between HP/armour

In addition to soaking, fix the relationship between accuracy and defence

This way, pures take full unprotected DPS against mains.

Mains will take reduced max/average damage, and be hit less overall.

E.G. move the standard "main vs pure" = "rock vs jello" to occur at ~40 defence instead of 75+. Or in some way that scales between your atk/def ration. I'll try to come up with numbers to supplement that.

Basically, it would be like dragon darts vs a steel 2H.

Here's a couple of things that can be done to fix the old system for both low defence pure abuse and lv.90 items one hit KOing people.

Old CBF:

X = Highest of 1.5 x Magic || 1.5 x Range || Attack+Strength

CBL = ( 1.3*X + Defence + Constitution + (Prayer/2) + (Summoning/2) ) / 4

New CBF: 

X = Highest of Ranged || Magic || (Attack + Strength)/2

CBL = ( 2.6*X + Defence + Constitution + (Prayer/2) + (Summoning/2) ) / 4

Pure:

45hp 60atk 99str 1def pray/sum 1

Combat level: 63

drag scim+dclaws+monk robes

Scim max: 228

Claw spec: 211-105-62-52 (430), 211 no spec

450HP, dmg >= 446 gets soaked for 0% (no armour, thus no 15% soak that would apply to only 4 damage anyway)

vs

Main:

50hp 50atk 50str 50def pray/sum 1

Combat level: 57

rune scim + rune armour.

Scim max: 190

500HP, dmg >= 250 gets soaked for 17%

EXAM:

Max hit: 400

99 Atk/Str/Def

Immediate flaw noticed: the static 1-(DEF/100) definitely needs something else. Probably a relation to attack levels.

Soaking needs to scale more with what kind of damage outputs you can attain at specific combat levels.

Let's say your accuracy is effected like this: ATK-(DEF/1.75) and the levels represent a literal %hitrate.

~Owner/Dev of a modded TF2 server community.

60-33=31% hitrate

50-1=49% hitrate

99-57=42% hitrate (99atk vs 99def)

99-1=98% hitrate (99atk vs 1def)

Just for kicks, let's say we multiply that hitrate by a modifier derived from our attack and defence level.

In other words, knowledge/experience of defence contributes to the ability to get around defence.

1+(atk+def/150) (atk/def from the same player, not my attack vs enemy def)

1+((60+1)/175) = 1.35 *31%=41.85% hitrate

1+((50+50)/175)= 1.57 *49%=76.93% hitrate

1+((99+99)/175)= 2.13 *42%=89.46% hitrate

1+((99+99)/175)= 2.13 *98%= cap at a 95% hitrate or something

Average damage at this point, would be something like (Max/2)*hitrate.

Pure: 47.709

Main: 73.084

EXAM: 190

We could also look into minimum hit.

Min = a certain %age of your max determined by your attack vs enemy def, assuming you hit in the first place.

Make defence effect that minimum hit.

Let's say we go for a minimum of 15%

Min = Max * ((Atk-Def+1)/100) + Atk/1000

Pure:

Scim min: 228 * (((60-50+1)/100) + 0.06) = 228*0.17 = 39

Main:

Scim min: 190 * (((50-1+1)/100) + 0.05) = 190*0.55 = 105

400 * (((99-99+1)/100) + 0.099) = 400*0.109 = 44

This way, allowing your defence gap to be larger gives people a huge advantage over you, while more even players don't have to worry nearly as much and will be more evenly matched.

Let's look at average damage after this:

Pure: 41.85% hit 039-118 | 58.15% miss | 078.5 | Weighted average damage: 33

Main: 76.93% hit 105-190 | 23.07% miss | 147.5 | WAD: 113

EXAM: 95.00% hit 044-400 | 05.00% miss | 222.0 | WAD: 211

33 average vs 500 hp is 15 hits.

113 average vs 450 hp is 4 hits.

211 average vs 450 hp is 2.13 hits.

Note: 45+60+99+1 = 205 | 50+50+50+50 = 200 | They should actually be pretty even in combat given this. It's level 63 vs 57.

Unfortunately, it may seem a little ad-hoc to make defence play a role in your accuracy. I'm still trying to come up with different formulas. You could even skip that defense multiplier and adjust the minimum hit thing to help with that and adjust accuracy another way.

But, in argument for making defense affect accuracy:

At level 10 defence you had little knowledge about how to defend yourself but learned how to block some things.

At level 20 defence you have more knowledge about how to defend yourself, and you now know what kind of things got past your previous level 10 defence.

At level 10 accuracy (atk/range/mage) you're bad at aiming darts, channeling magic, or swinging a sword properly to get a good hit on the opponent.

At level 20 accuracy your proficiency with weapons gets better, but not necessarily your knowledge of the workings of defence.

Similarly, in RS2 your magic level helped increase your defense against magic. The difference may or may not be negligible but you could apply it to all 3 classes.

Though even if you have knowledge of certain attack patterns, it doesn't mean your durability is higher.

So pures don't necessarily need to be made terrible against evenly leveled players.

But there needs to be trade-offs, and we want them to not be in favour of uneven stats.

At the same time, the pure's stat total is still higher than the even leveled player, given this scenario. You could take off 5 HP and make the stats the same but it'd be lvl 62 vs 57.

We also want people who are maxed to hit more often, but not make the two hit KO line too apparent.

How high above your level should someone be, for them to completely demolish you? Like 20 level dif is kinda far and 10 level is kinda close.

"Do you wish to undo the accuracy penalty yes or no?"

I'm not sure what the current accuracy penalty is, but I've been working on a way to solve pures in the old system and it involves an accuracy vs defence thing. I'm still working on the math and alternatives however.

"You should/mistakenly see Legacy as X"

I have not claimed to know exactly what legacy will be like. However, I've already given reasons as to why I believe it will be missing some major portions of the good stuff of pre-EoC.

- Jagex not changing armour to get rid of the class attachment to armour was deliberately made to get rid of hybridding

- Jagex not using the stats that had various stats for/against all 3 sections of the triangle ruins hybridding

- Homogenization of the classes

"Throwing away an EoC concept"

Not everything in this thread is necessarily about improving the EoC, but I was going to look into shield stuff in the EoC to see if there's something that could be utilized from that later. If you have a problem with new/fresh ideas, that's your issue.

Additionally, I was going to look more into the strong/weak/neutral armour thing more because for hybridding to be viable it's mostly important for the offense to work than to have defense that perfectly matches your attack style. We could have a cross between the armour weakness and separate weapon offensive that would be similar to pre-EoC hybrid armour.

Basically just remove the class restriction on damage, and make it so individual armour pieces contribute to their classes's offense differently. What I'm saying here would be pretty much the same as pre-EoC, but you get to keep EoC's stat system.

"old system is gone, Legacy isn't pre-EoC, Jagex will not revert everything back"

I've said many times that I already know this. I have never claimed that they will revert things back. Please read before you reply.

"Start from EoC and make it like pre-EoC"

That's almost the same thing as what I'm doing already.

Reverting to pre-EoC and then adding:

EoC new items

EoC new combat formula

EoC food

EoC changing the relation of atk/hp/def/str/mage (especially def)

Is the same as

Keeping EoC and removing:

Abilities

Class homogenization

Class specific armour

Which way do you want me to word it? Balancing the EoC with those 3 things removed is pretty much the same as pre-EoC with EoC concepts.