Thieving: Faster When Walking?

[smartme]

There is no way that JAGeX actually took the time to program in a code that reduces your chance of successfully theiving when you have run toggled on. No way at all.

 

 

 

Either it's a glitch with the system, or you're just having bad luck. In my opinion, it's bad luck.

 

 

 

Not that I'd expect you to do so, but I wouldn't believe the results of just these few tests. If your data sample pool was larger (100+ trips) and you consistently come up with these numbers, then I'd have to agree. Otherwise, you're just having bad luck.

 

took the time?!?!?!?!?! what are you talking about....

 

 

 

if (running == true) {

 

chanceOfSuccess -= .04;

 

}

 

 

 

Yes I know it wouldn't be that simple, but thats basically all they would need to add. it wouldn't take more then 5 minutes.

 

 

 

Once again some 1 assumes something about programming that they clearly have no idea about...

 

 

 

*There is no way that JAGeX would take the time to sabotage a mini-game like this. It's not a funny joke, and not in the scope of the game's goals. They think they have better things to do.

[FoxTricks]

That comparison is too close for it to mean anything.

[darkblade986]

You guys all assume that Jagex wouldn't do something like base a calculation on whether you have run on or not, but what is your basis for this? What precedent can you cite that all activities cannot have a factor related to a minor detail? In addition, where can you cite precedent that Jagex won't create abstract comparisons to make things work? This is not your game to decide what is right or wrong or what can or can't happen. If Jagex wants to say Speed = Failure, then there is nothing that says they can't do that. It's called creativity. For example: What precedent was set that said that the Hero's Quest and Legend's Quest should not be allowed to use completely unrelated quests as prerequisites for the start? The Biohazard storyline only used quests before it in the story or directly related to how the quest worked, therefore all further quests should work in a similar manner because it has been done.

 

 

 

Hero's quest: Shield of Arrav involved assigning gang members to get specific items (related); Lost City involved finding a hidden fairy colony using a specific staff made from a tree found only on Entrana, which could be accessed before the quest regardless, thus allowing for access to the Entrana Fire Bird (unrelated); Merlin's Crystal involved finding the sword Excalibur to shatter a crystal (unrelated); Dragon Slayer involved slaying a dragon to become a full member of the Champion's Guild (story line continuation; related).

 

 

 

Legend's quest: Hero's quest (story line continuation; related); Family Crest involved finding 3 brothers and performing tasks to obtain pieces to a crest to restore a family member's honor (unrelated); Shilo Village involved helping a tribe rid themselves of an undead presence (related ONLY by location); Underground pass involved navigating a large cavern in an attempt to find the elven province (unrelated); Waterfall quest involved finding some mythical treasure discovered by a little boy (unrelated).

 

 

 

But according to the precedent set by all quests from before that had any kind of prerequisite quest, they must be related in some way due to how the quest functions (such as Mourning's End Part I needing Big Chompy Bird Hunting for the frogs) or because it is a story line continuation. However, Lost City, Merlin's Crystal, Family Crest, Shilo Village, Underground Pass and the Waterfall quest all were completely unrelated to either the Hero's or Legend's quest. Precedent set; Precedent shattered. What's to say that they now want to combine Running (Agility) with thieving? In essence, they are almost a requirement for each other (can't steal from someone if you're not agile enough to get away). Precedent was set for the use of agility and thieving together when the H.A.M. dungeon and the Rogue's den came out. So saying that Jagex would never do something like this just because the idea sounds stupid in and of itself makes the person who said such a thing look foolish for not giving Jagex credit for thinking outside the box.

 

 

 

[/small rant]

 

 

 

I will admit that only 10 data points is a bit small for an accurate sample, but this simply helps him to (attempt to) establish a hypothesis. All that needs to be done now is increase the sample size and adjust the method for more consistency. Increase each trip's urn attempts to 30 (or more, if possible), and repeat it 50 or so times for each. Alternate between the use of run and not using it so that it can't be blamed on a streak of luck. This would also allow for consistent data across changing thieving levels assuming that he leveled up during the test. From there, bring back the results for analysis and we can decide whether they are believable or not.

 

 

 

That comparison of an average of 2 more fails could be significant depending on what the person is doing. Many people use Super Energy potions for things like Rune Crafting, and even though I've never done Pyramid Plunder, if the energy drain that occurs as a result of its use would dictate the use of Energy potions, then this number could become significant. If you were to try 1000 urns, then this means that you should fail approximately 2000 times more than someone else who is not running. When we get to the higher numbers, that becomes quite significant. I believe that his data currently shows a possibility, and with refining, he might stumble upon a breakthrough.

[Jard_Y_Dooku]

There is no way that JAGeX actually took the time to program in a code that reduces your chance of successfully theiving when you have run toggled on. No way at all.

 

 

 

Either it's a glitch with the system, or you're just having bad luck. In my opinion, it's bad luck.

 

 

 

Not that I'd expect you to do so, but I wouldn't believe the results of just these few tests. If your data sample pool was larger (100+ trips) and you consistently come up with these numbers, then I'd have to agree. Otherwise, you're just having bad luck.

 

took the time?!?!?!?!?! what are you talking about....

 

 

 

if (running == true) {

 

chanceOfSuccess -= .04;

 

}

 

 

 

Yes I know it wouldn't be that simple, but thats basically all they would need to add. it wouldn't take more then 5 minutes.

 

 

 

Once again some 1 assumes something about programming that they clearly have no idea about...

 

 

 

*There is no way that JAGeX would take the time to sabotage a mini-game like this. It's not a funny joke, and not in the scope of the game's goals. They think they have better things to do.

 

 

 

1. Eww, K&R indentation.

 

2. Redundant.

 

 

 

chanceOfSuccess = (running) ? 0.68f : 0.64f;

 

 

 

That's a much cleaner/better way to write that code. :)

[spuriousmonkey]

I did a quick statistical analysis at work (T test) and the results are not significant.

[Sy_Accursed]

You can fail more than once per urn.

 

 

 

Yes but to fail more than once you have to loot it more than once ergo his facts r crazy.

 

 

 

If he looted every urn UNTIL he succesfully did it tht means each ruyn is 20 + number of fails

 

 

 

Which means they is no real control to it as each test will of had a different amount of attempted lootings, to draw real data from it not only do you need more results as the poster said above me but also you need more controlled data as in you loot 20 urns, as in you only loot each once and log whether u fail or succeed that way each test run has the same number of trials in it.

 

 

 

His data as it stands a 3 fail run has only 23 trials in it

 

While the 22 fail run has 42 trials in it

 

 

 

comparing these for doesn't prove anything because he hasn't done the same number of trials

 

 

 

What he means is that you can fail the same urn more than once without getting any exp or treasure. It's the exp + item part that counts as looting. You're assuming that simply clicking on the urn is defined as looting, which is not so. On each run, he successfully gained exp from 20 urns.

 

 

 

Can you not read?

 

 

 

My point was its not a fair trial.

 

 

 

A fair trial means you test the exact same number regardless of success or failure.

 

 

 

His tests each used a different number as he looted until he was successful.

 

 

 

The point being you can't draw real conlusion where you have looted til you succeed all 20 urns because that means each test has a different amount of data. Eg a run with 3 fails has 23 trials a run with 22 fails has 42 trials. There is no measure of control. To truely test this theory out we would need more runs done, but also we would need it to be on a set number eg ONLY 20 trials so that the data we get for each run would me say 10 fails 10 success (20 trials), 5 fail 15 success (20 trials). As in to get FAIR data each on the 20 urns most only be attempted ONCE per run not until it gives loot

[CowsEatFood]

^^ look at post above me since I didn't want to start a quote train.

 

Yup, because the rng resets itself each time you try to loot an urn (I'm just taking an educated guess on this, it seems like most of thieving is based on this).

[AlexDT]

Paw_Claw:

 

My point was one of semantics, not one with any relation to the original topic. There was no need for the insult - perhaps you're the one having difficulty reading.

 

Glad to see you're now saying 'attempting' instead of 'looting'.

 

Oh, and by the by, I don't believe this test holds any value either.

[petert1985]

you need to do tests 100 times not 10 times. im fed up of noobs making up rumours based on something they have tested 10 times.

[Winner5555]

you need to do tests 100 times not 10 times. im fed up of noobs making up rumours based on something they have tested 10 times.

 

 

 

He noticed something, decided to test it out, did a small sample then posted here to see if others could help him prove it or not. He's not trying to force anyone else to believe it, he already said it may be just a coincidence. If it did turn out to be true, wouldn't you be glad that he actually told others instead of just dismissing it as another stupid thought? And even if it isn't true, what's to say the testers don't find out some other nifty little trick while trying to experiment with this one?

[idiot911]

paw claw... its a list of how many times he failed. You can retheive a failed urn.

[Sy_Accursed]

paw claw... its a list of how many times he failed. You can retheive a failed urn.

 

 

 

Learn to read an entire thread and try to comprehend the vast and challenging concept of a fair trial

 

 

 

I'm bored of people saying "you can fial and unr more than once" when I have clearly and in some depth explained my point TWICE and it has NOTHING to do with whether or not you can fail or loot an urn more than once.