Total Level. Is it a good score system?
Would you prefer to have high Total Level or high Combat? I was investigating this question for a while on the forums and found out that in general:
- Combat gets more credit in the game.
- But Total Level is much more respected by the overall community (especially on the forums).
So what is the significance of Total Level?
Simple. It shows how proficient you are in ALL aspects of the game, not just killing part of it. I bet that a player with 1700 Total and 95 Combat knows much more about Runescape than a person with 126 Combat and 1500 Total. I’d really rather see person’s total in the game instead of Combat (well, OK, together with Combat).
But the Total Level indicator has several big flaws as well.
- Total for F2P
- Skills for money
- Different complexity of the skills
Let’s take a look at each one of them.
Total for F2P.
The thing is that Total for F2P players is very misleading. So many skills are not available for F2P players, but the Total is calculated using the same formula for P2P and F2P. Maxed out F2P player would have 1494 Total, which can be reached by P2P player by getting all his/her stats only to 65. See the difference?
Skills for money.
I am sure you know that there are a few skills that can be raised super quickly when you have enough money to pay for materials. So, if you already have millions in the game, you can just fly through those skills, while other people have to spend a lot of effort getting there. These skills are:
Cooking, Fletching, Construction, Smithing, Prayer, Firemaking, Herblore, Crafting
And at less degree:
Ranged, Magic, Farming and Runecrafting
I can tell you, people would have more respect for a person with 99 Mining rather than 99 Cooking and Fletching. But Total does not account for it in any way.
Different complexity of the skills.
Some skills are very easy to understand and raise. Let’s take Attack for example. It just goes up naturally, you don’t really have to think much about it. But look at Farming! Not many people raise it simply because it is complex. You have to get seeds, hop all around the world, plant and harvest. Which one would you respect more? Again Total does not account for it.
Is there a solution ?
Yes, I think that different score system should be introduced. This score system should:
- have separate scores for F2P and P2P
- give more points for skills which cannon be bought
- give more points for more complex skills
- possibly also take in account whether a player raised all his/her skills or only a few of them
- possibly take in account pures
There was an attempt to implement such score system at Runewise (www.runewise.net), but it is pretty subjective as only a small group of players participated in its development. I hope Jagex will pick up the idea and make similar score system one day.
What do you think of it?
Posted by vrunewise (owner of Runewise)
Did You Enjoy this Post? Subscribe to Runescape Haven for Free Today!
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(16 votes, average: 3.63 out of 5)
Loading ...
September 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Excellent point.
Somehow I never did think about the unfairness of total level, obsessing as I do about how people judge you by your combat level.
knifestorm Says:September 10th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Total Score is easy to understand. You see the number you know what ti means - a simple total.
Any other system will be a little mysterious.
Also: why do you give more weight to skills which can’t be bought? Do you assume that any one who has these skills HAD to buy them? Do you think getting money is not a part of the game to be valued?
There is no perfect system. Some people only care about combat levles, some people only care about how “pure” you are. You can’t please everyone.
Jagex is better off keeping it simple. The only thing I wish they would do is add Quest Points to the mix.
vrunewise Says:September 10th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Knifestorm,
I agree that there is no way to create a common system perfect for every group, but I would like to see an least some scoring systems for these groups. Total is only somewhat OK for skillers, nothing is there for pures or F2P players. I am not against total score - I just want to see more score indicators available for the players.
Regarding other points you raised.
Yes, Total is simple, but Combat is not. But still players accept it without any problems.
Skills for money. Yes, I think that amount of money a player has in the game can be very very misleading. You just can’t make billions by pure skilling. Big money come from merchanting, stacking and other sources. People get money from their friends, as donations for skilling, even buy for real money. Also rares… Players who started to play a bit earlier and were smart enough to hold on on their party hats are super rich now. What does it have to do with skilling?
Chris Says:April 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Hmm… Vrunewise, you forgot one or two of Knifestorm’s points - more specifically, this paragraph:
————————-
vrunewise Says:Also: why do you give more weight to skills which can’t be bought? Do you assume that any one who has these skills HAD to buy them? Do you think getting money is not a part of the game to be valued?
————————-
I think you probably answered the last sentence (though indirectly), but the second stands. Some players, probably with strong principles - or maybe just OCD, have probably leveled the skills that can be bought without buying the necessary materials. These players would get the short end of the stick from an algorithm which values those skills less.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Well, true. The formula isn’t fair for such players, but I think it is still rather accurate for majority of the skillers.
When we talking about such “buyable” skills it is rather safe to assume that majority of 90+ levels were achieved by pouring big money into these skills.
ionno Says:June 12th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
well how do u no the 99 fmers used money t9o buy the logs mabe they cut every single log and then burned it huh huhuh huhuhu???