Forum:Monster charm value

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Monster charm value
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 July 2011 by Liquidhelium.

Just now, I stumbled across the Charm#Relative_Experience_Value section. It occurred to me how valuable the information contained within it is. For those who do not know, it essentially tracks the experience ratio of all 4 charms, and finds the average in relation to the experience value of gold charms.

Simply put, the four charm types are, with this information, easily comparable. What I suggest is the following: A new value should be included in both the charm logs, and the monster infobox - a monsters "charm value" (or something equivalent). Essentially, this would compute to the sum of the charm drop rates multiplied by their average value in gold charms multiplied by the dropped amount.

Charm value=(1*(gold charm drop rate)+1.33*(green charm drop rate)+3.36*(crimson charm drop rate)+6.83*(blue charm drop rate))*(amount dropped)

This value would have the great advantage of making absolute comparisons between monsters possible. That is to say, questions such as "are rock lobsters or waterfiends better for training summoning" would be by far easier to answer than they are now.

Implemented it might look something like this: (here for abyssal demons)

{{#expr: (1 *{{Charm:Abyssal demon|view=gold}}+ 1.33*{{Charm:Abyssal demon|view=green}}+ 3.36*{{Charm:Abyssal demon|view=crimson}}+ 6.83*{{Charm:Abyssal demon|view=blue}})/ {{Charm:Abyssal demon|view=kills}} }}

is written as:

  (1   *{{Charm:Abyssal demon|view=gold}}+
   1.33*{{Charm:Abyssal demon|view=green}}+
   3.36*{{Charm:Abyssal demon|view=crimson}}+
   6.83*{{Charm:Abyssal demon|view=blue}})/
        {{Charm:Abyssal demon|view=kills}}

The amount of decimal digits should of course be limited to 3 or so, so as to not present too much jargon.

That said, the constants behind the charm values (1, 1.33, 3.36, 6.83) should be re-checked and if need be adjusted. (note that as the average is being taken, I'd say the average for all exp values upto level 99 should be used and not the level average)

I'd be willing to undertake all calculations and/or template edits.

Thank you for reading, ~Artwich 13:50, June 21, 2011 (UTC)


Oppose - I like the idea of assigning charm values to monsters. I see a problem with this, though. To answer the question in your proposal, I found the charm values for rock lobsters and waterfiends: ~2.44 for the former and ~3.01 for the latter, assuming I did the calculations correctly. Does this mean that waterfiends are better than rock lobsters for charms? No, because 9 lobsters can be killed at once with Ice Barrage (and lobsters are already acknowledged as the fastest method of getting crimsons). Because the calculations seem to lack this speed factor, absolute comparisons would technically not be possible because the charm values would be inaccurate.

If the charm value represented the average value of the number of charms received in one hour instead of the average value of a single kill, it would be better. However, this would be problematic because the number of monsters killed (and thus the number of charms received) varies according to the player and the technique used. We could let people decide for themselves how many monsters they can kill and how many charms they can obtain in one hour, but then again, that ruins the point of easy comparisons.  Tien  01:57, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point, but I'm afraid that I cannot agree with the statement "that ruins the point of easy comparisons". True, the comparison gets muddied if you will and isn't a black-and-white thing. But then again, it never could be. Suggesting to level 3s to ice barrage rock lobsters for charms isn't going to lead anywhere. Likewise you would only insult a maxed out player if you said goblins are great for gold charms. Obviously there can't be a "magic number" telling every player what to do.
However that doesn't mean we can't work towards something to simplify (and improve) decisions. To give an analogy: Trees in the woodcutting skill take progressively longer to chop down. They also give progressively more experience. Magic trees plainly give the most experience per log, yet most people agree that training with it is nonsense.
The situation is similar to the Waterfiends/Rock lobsters problem: Although we have an absolute value (exp per log / "monster charm value"), this value is worthless without another. The second value is much harder; almost impossible to determine and different for each person (cutting speed/killing speed). Where I can no-longer follow you is that draw from this the conclusion that the first value has no use. I have no doubt that if someone suggested that the wiki removed exp values for actions such as cutting down trees, they would be laughed off the stage.
Obviously the exact nature of the "monster charm value" would have to be described in detail, and it must be made clear that exactly such direct comparisons cannot be made. I concede that my example of the use of such a value was slightly false (as you aptly demonstrated, a direct comparison gives us nothing). I think that (much the same way as woodcutting, to continue the analogy) each person must decide for themselves what they prefer, while skill training guides will still fulfill their role in promoting better methods of training for certain groups. Something like the "monster charm value" is a tool to achieve accurate decisions, not a miracle formula. ~Artwich 16:26, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean with the Woodcutting analogy, with the charm value representing the "experience" per kill. With Woodcutting, though, the experience per log is definite; it's the speed at which you obtain logs that's relative and difficult to determine. But with Summoning, both the experience (charm value) and the speed are relative. You aren't guaranteed a certain amount of experience per kill; the experience only comes when you make the pouches. This brings up even more dilemmas (eg. Which pouch should you make? How expensive is it to make this pouch? Is the cost mainly from the shards or the secondary ingredients? How long will it take to make all these pouches?) and more possibilities for second values. And as I mentioned earlier, the charm value is missing important factors involved in experience (eg. How fast can I kill these monsters? How long do I have to kill them? How much does it cost to kill them?). I know that these values are extremely difficult to determine and include in the charm value, but they are important, perhaps necessary, for such a complex skill.
I'm probably making this more complicated than it should be, so I'll wait for more comments from you and other people. I do agree that the charm value is a decent guideline, and I know that there's no perfect formula to determine which monster is best to kill to obtain charms. I just think that a charm value based purely on charm drop percentages is simply another way of expressing the data in the table. Easier to read, admittedly, but since people usually favor a crimson charms when going charm hunting, wouldn't comparing the percentages of crimson charms be more useful than comparing charm values, some which may only be high because of the high percentage of greens instead of crimsons?  Tien  21:14, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The valid point is brought up that this calculation may be more misleading than helpful due to the fact that it does not take into account the time differential in obtaining one drop (that is, difference in average monsters killed per unit time). Thus, this will not be implemented. --LiquidTalk 22:41, July 8, 2011 (UTC)