what ring?

[willyd]

just a simple question wondering what would be the best ring for just general slaying i currently have a berserker ring should i keep this or no?...if it matters my stats are 75 att 70 defence and 70 strengh

thanks in advance

[stonewall337]

At your level, for most tasks a warrior ring is the better choice. At higher levels, with x pots+turmoil, berserker is better.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

just a simple question wondering what would be the best ring for just general slaying i currently have a berserker ring should i keep this or no?...if it matters my stats are 75 att 70 defence and 70 strengh

thanks in advance

Berserker is a very good bread and butter ring.

A few monsters you might want to consider using a warrior ring on. Basically any task with substantial defense, that you are whipping.

the warrior ring is afterall, only 400k gp

 

MA rings are better, but you're better off training slayer than ranking up in MA.

You'll gain levels so fast that 25 hours of slaying will boost your combat abilities much more than onyx/berserker rings(i)

[stonewall337]

Although, the sooner you get a MA ring, the more it will benefit you in the long run.

[qeltar]

Overall, the warrior ring is a superior choice over the berserker ring. The only possible exception is when fighting easy monsters where the miss rate is extremely low. Especially with your levels, the warrior ring is almost certainly preferable (in addition to being a lot cheaper).

 

That of course is assuming the use of a slashing weapon...

 

As for MA rings... while I haven't tested them specifically, tests with and without the berserker ring suggest that you are far better off spending that time doing just about *anything* else, unless you enjoy MA for its own sake.

[Bladewing]

You only need to hit a little over 50% of the time for berserker to be better.

 

That being said, the only place I would take a warrior/diamond (i)/dstone (i)/onyx (i) is metal dragons, particularly steels and miths. Also at Corp beast.

[Neohero1972]

Hi

 

I'm sorry for being such an ignorant moron :oops: , but will anyone please tell me what a MA ring is ?

[Grimy_Bunyip]

Although, the sooner you get a MA ring, the more it will benefit you in the long run.

likewise the sooner you raise your combat level, the more it will benefit you in the long run.

You level up too quickly at lower levels to justify getting MA rings. I would hold off on MA rings until at least 90+ attack/strength/defence.

[qeltar]

You only need to hit a little over 50% of the time for berserker to be better.

That's incorrect, because a single hit that you get because of the warrior ring over a miss with the berserker ring is worth a lot more than the incremental damage you do with the berserker ring.

 

I've tested this extensively and the warrior ring is consistently better on tough opponents.. or at least, no worse. Just published another report earlier today.

 

Neo: Imbued rings from Mobilising Armies.

[Neohero1972]

Neo: Imbued rings from Mobilising Armies.

 

Okay, thanks - now we all knows !

[Bladewing]

You only need to hit a little over 50% of the time for berserker to be better.

That's incorrect, because a single hit that you get because of the warrior ring over a miss with the berserker ring is worth a lot more than the incremental damage you do with the berserker ring.

 

I've tested this extensively and the warrior ring is consistently better on tough opponents.. or at least, no worse. Just published another report earlier today.

 

Neo: Imbued rings from Mobilising Armies.

But 4 slash accuracy has a very small increase in accuracy, i.e. your odds of hitting are not a great deal better.

 

And your data is a tiny sample size and completely uncontrolled. Your preconceive notions of the supposed uselessness of the berserker ring is evidenced by you getting lower xp with the berserker ring than with no ring at all.

 

Also you are wrong if you think that those numbers prove that the warrior ring is better. An amateur statistician could tell you that you need to set a null hypothesis and reject that. You have done nothing of the sort and your test is 100% inconclusive, contrary to what your "conclusion" would lead someone to believe.

 

Please stop claiming that you're being scientific when you're manipulating data. :thumbdown:

[qeltar]

But 4 slash accuracy has a very small increase in accuracy, i.e. your odds of hitting are not a great deal better.

Obviously. That's why empirical data is valuable.

 

And that data shows that against difficult opponents, +4 accuracy is usually more valuable than +4 strength. Which also makes intuitive sense.

 

And your data is a tiny sample size and completely uncontrolled. Your preconceive notions of the supposed uselessness of the berserker ring is evidenced by you getting lower xp with the berserker ring than with no ring at all.

No, that is evidence that the difference between a berserker ring and no ring at all is not statistically significant given the inherent random fluctuations in the game itself and my sample size.

 

But I wouldn't call it tiny. Those two tests represent the equivalent of spending about three consecutive 8-hour days in combat. If you think you can do better, go for it -- only so many hours in a day.

 

You have done nothing of the sort and your test is 100% inconclusive, contrary to what your "conclusion" would lead someone to believe.

You're entitled to your opinion. I think that while it may not be 100% conclusive, saying it is 100% inconclusive is nonsense. If there were any sort of obvious advantage to the berserker ring, it would show in that amount of data.

 

Please stop claiming that you're being scientific when you're manipulating data. :thumbdown:

"Manipulating data" implies that I am being deliberately dishonest. I'll thank you to either provide evidence that I am doing so or retract that accusation.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

I'm going to have to side with bladewing here.

Your method of comparing the rings simply allows for too many variables.

The efficiency of your gameplay could be fluctuating, you could be getting more tired at times.

heck maybe even the respawn rates of the monsters could be changing.

something along the lines of documenting the damage hit with each attack, would have cut down on the variables much more, just for example.

 

you're data is definitely far too inconclusive as it is right now.

[qeltar]

Your method of comparing the rings simply allows for too many variables.

The efficiency of your gameplay could be fluctuating, you could be getting more tired at times.

heck maybe even the respawn rates of the monsters could be changing.

something along the lines of documenting the damage hit with each attack, would have cut down on the variables much more, just for example.

These tests are not conducted by starting a timer, killing the monster X times and then stopping the timer. It is started at the beginning of each kill, and ended at the end of each kill. If at any time I mess up and forget to click at the right time, I scrap that subtest and start over. Thus, my efficiency is not a factor, nor is respawn time, monster movement and so forth.

 

Think about how much effort it takes to accumulate that much data with having to click to start and stop each monster while also keeping track of kills. It's quite time consuming, but I did it specifically to avoid the problems you mentioned.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

These tests are not conducted by starting a timer, killing the monster X times and then stopping the timer. It is started at the beginning of each kill, and ended at the end of each kill. If at any time I mess up and forget to click at the right time, I scrap that subtest and start over. Thus, my efficiency is not a factor, nor is respawn time, monster movement and so forth.

 

Think about how much effort it takes to accumulate that much data with having to click to start and stop each monster while also keeping track of kills. It's quite time consuming, but I did it specifically to avoid the problems you mentioned.

Wouldn't that amplify any human error then?

If I'm interpreting this right. You're manually starting and ending your timer when you attack and kill a monster.

There would be some human error, just due to reflexes, And I'd imagine that ratio of this human error, to the time it takes to kill a single monster, would be nontrivial.

[qeltar]

Wouldn't that amplify any human error then?

Over the course of hundreds of kills, any slight mistakes -- such as being a fraction of a second slow in seeing the red bar or a fraction of a second fast anticipating it -- would tend to even out. I also only did monsters that take a fairly long time to kill, which reduces the impact of measurement error.

 

Regardless, random error doesn't matter all that much as long as there is no bias in the measurements. Meaning.. as long as I am doing the same thing for the three cases I am testing, it should all come out in the wash.

 

In practice, the randomness in the game itself is far greater than any variations in my process.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

Wouldn't that amplify any human error then?

Over the course of hundreds of kills, any slight mistakes -- such as being a fraction of a second slow in seeing the red bar or a fraction of a second fast anticipating it -- would tend to even out. I also only did monsters that take a fairly long time to kill, which reduces the impact of measurement error.

 

Regardless, random error doesn't matter all that much as long as there is no bias in the measurements. Meaning.. as long as I am doing the same thing for the three cases I am testing, it should all come out in the wash.

 

In practice, the randomness in the game itself is far greater than any variations in my process.

You really can't rely on the randomness due to your reflexes to even out though.

Reflexes are a human factor, we can't expect them to hold steady with time.

 

Additionally we don't know if there isn't a bias. because once again, reflex is a human factor.

You make a comment at the end of your report, stating that once again strength bonus is overrated.

That doesn't really help your credibility. How do we know your opinion of strength bonus during the experiment didn't affect your reflexes?

[Zephy]

The effect you get from either of them is significant but not that great. You may want to consider just always using a ring of life. Sure, your task might be 1-2% slower or something, but I've been saved by ring of life many times from lag or personal stupidity. Is this suboptimal? Yes. Is it a good idea? I think so.

 

Berserker is 10 LP more of max hit. With whip, you'll already be hitting well into the 300s and maybe 400s. This is like less than a 5% speedup on the actual fighting part of the task, to say nothing of walking between and attacking new monsters for every kill.

 

Warrior is 5 slash. Even without knowing concretely what it does, consider that the usual setup with whip + amulet + defender has more than 25x that much slash bonus. Is a 3-4% or whatever bonus to attack going to help your accuracy that much?

 

The effects are measurable, but in reality you'd probably get more variation from just how fast you clicked that particular task or whatnot.

 

What ring you get, if any, will probably depend on your budget. There are plenty of other things out there to buy, and many of them will give you a much more noticeable improvement.

[Mazhar]

Use diamond (i) , your attack level is low so you need as much of an accuracy boost as you can get, or of course warrior ring, after 90+ attack you will hardy ever hit a 0 on the average slayer task, which is when you should switch to berserker

[zotto]

Report #10 was rather interesting.

 

I think the main problem here is that most people think that these kind of tests should give a conclusive answer to the question of which ring is best. That isn't the case and that is an answer in itself.

 

There is no need to instantly doubt the setup of the experiment. The experiment merely indicates that the semi-randomness of the game engine is a much more important causal factor in the generation of variation then the ring that is equipped.

 

I don't have access to the original dataset but if you would analyze it you will probably find out that the 3 datasets are equal in statistical comparison tests if you apply the standard probability margins.

 

It is interesting also that the warrior ring does come out on top, although this may be statistically insignificant. That would indicate that if there is indeed a difference than it is currently most likely that the slash/accuracy bonus is stronger than a strength bonus.

 

As a research biologist myself I am quite comfortable with these "inconclusive" results, and they don't worry me at all. Inconclusive is also an answer. And sometimes it says more than a clear answer.

[qeltar]

Thanks zotto, appreciate it.

 

You really can't rely on the randomness due to your reflexes to even out though.

Reflexes are a human factor, we can't expect them to hold steady with time.

There's no reason to believe that any variations in my reflexes would affect combat with one ring more than another. This was a comparative test, not an absolute measurement.

 

Additionally we don't know if there isn't a bias. because once again, reflex is a human factor.

There's no evidence nor any logical reason to believe that which ring I was wearing would have any impact on my reflexes.

 

You make a comment at the end of your report, stating that once again strength bonus is overrated.

Yes, that's called a conclusion based on the evidence. :rolleyes:

 

That doesn't really help your credibility. How do we know your opinion of strength bonus during the experiment didn't affect your reflexes?

How could it? Do you think my brainwaves have power over space and time? Or are you accusing me of lying (with no evidence whatsoever, I might add)?

[Grimy_Bunyip]

No I'm not accusing you of lying, I just think your testing methods are flawed.

There's a perfectly good reason believe that a tester's preconceptions affect their output.

And your wording of the conclusion heavily implies your preconception of strength bonuses being overrated.

[blakdragon39]

That doesn't really help your credibility. How do we know your opinion of strength bonus during the experiment didn't affect your reflexes?

How could it? Do you think my brainwaves have power over space and time? Or are you accusing me of lying (with no evidence whatsoever, I might add)?

 

Seriously? That sounds like stretching it to me.. It sounds to ME like YOU'RE biased against qeltar for some reason, as well as biased against attack being useless. Have you done your own tests? Have you been able to conclude anything on your own? If you doubt so much, go do your own tests, make your own conclusions, and THEN come back here and tell use about your "unbiased" results.

[qeltar]

No I'm not accusing you of lying, I just think your testing methods are flawed.

There's a perfectly good reason believe that a tester's preconceptions affect their output.

And your wording of the conclusion heavily implies your preconception of strength bonuses being overrated.

So any time someone does a test and draws a conclusion from the results, this means that it happened because they wanted that to be the outcome?

 

There's some flawed reasoning going on around here alright, but it ain't mine!

 

You keep saying my methods are "flawed" but can't explain what the flaws are. And you certainly have no data to contradict mine.

 

So maybe the problem isn't that I have a preconception against strength bonuses, but that you have a preconception *in favor* of them and just want an excuse to reject anything that contradicts it.

[Guthorm]

I am going to be the odd guy here and say use explorer ring.