Abbysal minion gives invisible attack bonus?

[Neilson1111]

Well.... lol.

 

 

 

I was bored and I decided to kill 100 mith dragons for the day. Decided to bring my minion along( Got head from constant demon killing).

 

 

 

Normally I avg 3 kills a trip( melee) and etc. But I brought the minion, set him down next to me.

 

 

 

For some reason, my attacks turned very accurate, and I hit the mithril dragons for 9 hits straight!

 

 

 

And after that dragon, I started hitting alot more commonly than before.

 

 

 

Anyone know if it does? Or its just me being paranoid.

 

 

 

Discuss =O

[Tesset]

It's you being paranoid.

[Bladewing]

One trip doesn't give sufficient evidence at any significance level.

 

 

 

And why are you killing miths? They really aren't worth killing now that DFHs are 8m and DFSs are 15m.

 

 

 

EDIT: DFS was down to 13m, but it's up to 15m now.

[Neilson1111]

One trip doesn't give sufficient evidence at any significance level.

 

 

 

And why are you killing miths? They really aren't worth killing now that DFHs are 8m and DFSs are 13m.

 

 

 

im bored lol

[Bauke]

Kill 5k dragons with, and without the minion. Then come back.

[psvstef]

DFS is 13m! :o wtf

[nightshade53]

3 per trip is very low also, I do ~15 average :-#

[Neilson1111]

me no has unicorn =(

[Blutters]

Kill 5k dragons with, and without the minion. Then come back.

 

I hate this kind of thinking. You don't have to run thousands and thousands of tests if the difference is significant enough.

 

Mithril Dragons have high Defense. Depending on how often you kill them, you should have a feel for how accurate you are against them. Most players, using even the best possible equipment, will not hit nine times in a row on a Mithril Dragon...

 

 

 

Perhaps you should try killing Giant Rock Crabs in the same set-up. I believe that they have equal or greater Defense than Mithril Dragons.

 

Please post your results; you don't have to kill thousands or even hundreds to see.

[Bauke]

A "feel" has no statistical significance at all. To notice any changes, you need to have a high sample size. So that means you can't just base something on just 9 hits in a row. Ofcourse you could try it with an other monster, but it's a fact that you need a far higher sample size. You can hate it or not, but it's simply the way you need to determine statistics on a certain subject.

[walka92]

Kill 5k dragons with, and without the minion. Then come back.

 

I hate this kind of thinking. You don't have to run thousands and thousands of tests if the difference is significant enough.

 

Mithril Dragons have high Defense. Depending on how often you kill them, you should have a feel for how accurate you are against them. Most players, using even the best possible equipment, will not hit nine times in a row on a Mithril Dragon...

 

 

 

Perhaps you should try killing Giant Rock Crabs in the same set-up. I believe that they have equal or greater Defense than Mithril Dragons.

 

Please post your results; you don't have to kill thousands or even hundreds to see.

 

really? cant hit 9 times in a row? then explain why, atleast 5 times, ive killed a dragon w/o missing even once?

 

 

 

and you do need big sample sizes to confirm these things

[Blutters]

Kill 5k dragons with, and without the minion. Then come back.

 

I hate this kind of thinking. You don't have to run thousands and thousands of tests if the difference is significant enough.

 

Mithril Dragons have high Defense. Depending on how often you kill them, you should have a feel for how accurate you are against them. Most players, using even the best possible equipment, will not hit nine times in a row on a Mithril Dragon...

 

 

 

Perhaps you should try killing Giant Rock Crabs in the same set-up. I believe that they have equal or greater Defense than Mithril Dragons.

 

Please post your results; you don't have to kill thousands or even hundreds to see.

 

really? cant hit 9 times in a row? then explain why, atleast 5 times, ive killed a dragon w/o missing even once?

 

 

 

and you do need big sample sizes to confirm these things

 

Because you're an exaggerating troll who is trying to jump on a bandwagon that doesn't really exist.

 

Bauke has substance behind his arguments. I'm not arguing with him that you need large numbers for statistical data.

 

I'm simply saying that killing thousands of something isn't required for most people to see a trend, and usually would be a large waste of time. "Feelings" are more than enough in some cases.

[Bauke]

Yes, but if you want to prove something, like, a pet giving an invisible attack bonus, then you need substantial statistical evidence. So, in this case, you do need a large amount of kills to actually see the trend. Not saying you need exactly 5k, but extrapolating a fact based on the "research" in the opening post, is not enough.

[Bladewing]

Eh, 5000 is probably too large. I calculated the droprate of saradomin swords to +/- 5 kills at 95% confidence with a sample size of about 800.

[Master_Smither]

Bauke is right you need more testing. I.E 1000 hits and how many hit 0 out of that with and without the demon. Then maybe you can say for sure or of course if a J mod confirms it.

[Blutters]

I agree with that to an extent. I tried to explain it before, let me try again...

 

We don't know how many he's killed before now. If he's already killed a lot, then he already has an idea of what his abilities are. THIS is his research, not the hundred or so he killed today. If everything is the same, then doesn't that make his pet the only experimental variable?

 

Which to me means that if he noticed a SUBSTANTIAL (as in, more than just 'luck' over a short period) difference in his abilities from two identical events, his pet can be assumed as the reason...

[Bauke]

Eh, 5000 is probably too large. I calculated the droprate of saradomin swords to +/- 5 kills at 95% confidence with a sample size of about 800.

 

Yeah, I just picked a random number.

 

 

 

I agree with that to an extent. I tried to explain it before, let me try again...

 

We don't know how many he's killed before now. If he's already killed a lot, then he already has an idea of what his abilities are. THIS is his research, not the hundred or so he killed today. If everything is the same, then doesn't that make his pet the only experimental variable?

 

Which to me means that if he noticed a SUBSTANTIAL (as in, more than just 'luck' over a short period) difference in his abilities from two identical events, his pet can be assumed as the reason...

 

 

 

You're right. But based on what is posted in the topic start, you can't conclude that.

 

 

 

Additionally, when trying to figure out what the pet does, you do not only want to know IF the pet does something, but also exactly what it does. To effectively assess the actual effect of a pet, one needs an even bigger sample size. But that's beyond the question if the pet has an effect in the first place.

[walka92]

Kill 5k dragons with, and without the minion. Then come back.

 

I hate this kind of thinking. You don't have to run thousands and thousands of tests if the difference is significant enough.

 

Mithril Dragons have high Defense. Depending on how often you kill them, you should have a feel for how accurate you are against them. Most players, using even the best possible equipment, will not hit nine times in a row on a Mithril Dragon...

 

 

 

Perhaps you should try killing Giant Rock Crabs in the same set-up. I believe that they have equal or greater Defense than Mithril Dragons.

 

Please post your results; you don't have to kill thousands or even hundreds to see.

 

really? cant hit 9 times in a row? then explain why, atleast 5 times, ive killed a dragon w/o missing even once?

 

 

 

and you do need big sample sizes to confirm these things

 

Because you're an exaggerating troll who is trying to jump on a bandwagon that doesn't really exist.

 

Bauke has substance behind his arguments. I'm not arguing with him that you need large numbers for statistical data.

 

I'm simply saying that killing thousands of something isn't required for most people to see a trend, and usually would be a large waste of time. "Feelings" are more than enough in some cases.

 

how the hell am i an exaggerating troll? and what band wagon? "feelings" are not accurate, due to the fact that people try to make patterns out of things that follow no pattern, such as getting a few lucky hits when he put out the minion. maybe he just had a bad streak before he summoned his minion and then after that, by coincidence that he started hitting average?

[DarkDude]

Can we please not turn this into a flamewar?

 

 

 

Thanks

[Blutters]

The reason I said you are exaggerating is because even at maxed combat skills it's highly unlikely, even nearly impossible that you will kill five Mithril Dragons in a row without missing once. You are creating a highly unlikely example to support your 'view'.

 

 

 

I don't wish to argue with you any further. I have expressed my opinion and Bauke, whose views I respect, has seemingly reached an understanding with me.

[sadukar123]

The reason I said you are exaggerating is because even at maxed combat skills it's highly unlikely, even nearly impossible that you will kill five Mithril Dragons in a row without missing once. You are creating a highly unlikely example to support your 'view'.

 

 

 

I don't wish to argue with you any further. I have expressed my opinion and Bauke, whose views I respect, has seemingly reached an understanding with me.

 

He did NOT say he did it in a row, he merely said he killed 5 TOTAL that happened to never missed a hit on.

[firecat318]

This is not a valid conclusion.. just lucky hits.

[walka92]

The reason I said you are exaggerating is because even at maxed combat skills it's highly unlikely, even nearly impossible that you will kill five Mithril Dragons in a row without missing once. You are creating a highly unlikely example to support your 'view'.

 

 

 

I don't wish to argue with you any further. I have expressed my opinion and Bauke, whose views I respect, has seemingly reached an understanding with me.

 

i did not say in a row (albiet i did do it twice in 10 kills once). my "example" was to show that it is possible to hit that 9 times in a row or whatever the number was, thus that it is possible to get streaks that would appear to possibly the result of the minion, while being entirely coincidental

 

 

 

hence no reason to call me a troll

[JRD111]

I think the real issue here is why you were meleeing mith dragons #-o

[walka92]

I think the real issue here is why you were meleeing mith dragons #-o

 

why not? range isnt very much better actually