Talk:Pay-to-play Firemaking training

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This talk page is for discussing the Pay-to-play Firemaking training page.

I dont know why the log efficiency section on here has been changed. It was perfectly sound mathematics and gave a good example of how to analyse such a thing. Changing the logs burnt per hour from 1400 to 1150 is unecessary and i dont know why this was done. Also, the calculations made in the latest edit are wrong. For magic logs the 38,921/1150=34 hours NOT 26. If the correct answer of 34hours is carried forward then 34+39=73 hours total time. This is the same as Yew logs, but makes it more difficult to highlight the ending point, which i wanted to include for consideration. Therefore, not only did the value of 1400 not need changing to 1150, using 1150 hinders the impact of an analytical point that i tried to make.with the original edit.Zilfur (talk) 21:19, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Efficiency isn't telling the whole story[edit source]

Efficiency: this makes it seem like its more efficient to burn yews instead of magics (why arent redwoods also calculated?), which is not true. You have to take in account how it factors into total time to max, you're going to be runecrafting much more than the difference yew logs to magic logs makes (you're calculating micro efficiency of only firemaking and gp available). The gp difference isn't significant enough to make it more efficient overall to downgrade to yew logs.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.84.187.58 (talk) on 06:27, August 11, 2016‎ (UTC).

Pyre log xp rates are wrong[edit source]

The information for pyre logs is slightly wrong. I did some testing and the xp you get is dependent on the amount of sacred oil in the vial. Using sacred oil (4) on any log gives 16 xp, sacred oil (3) gives 12 xp, and sacred oil (2) gives 10 xp. This means using sacred oil (4) on two oak logs gives 16 xp + 10 xp for an average of 13 xp/log. However you can get around this by decanting the oil as you use it.129.93.243.43 16:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Jorm

Thanks for reporting this! That's some crazy system they've got there lol... I wonder how much spaghetti code must be behind that one to make this kind of stuff happen. Anyway, hopefully I've made it all a bit clearer with my edit just now!Joeytje50 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)