what ring?

[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.

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.

I don't have a preconception against strength bonus.

heck if you read my first post in this thread, I said that warrior ring probably is good for the player, especially considering his lower levels.

Is it so hard to believe that I simply think your experiment was flawed?

 

How much more simply do you want me to put it?

Your experiment was affected by human reflex.

And I believe that preconceptions can affect human reflex.

[1230abcz]

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.

I don't have a preconception against strength bonus.

heck if you read my first post in this thread, I said that warrior ring probably is good for the player, especially considering his lower levels.

Is it so hard to believe that I simply think your experiment was flawed?

 

How much more simply do you want me to put it?

Your experiment was affected by human reflex.

And I believe that preconceptions can affect human reflex.

 

 

Human reflex time isn't a big enough factor in Qeltar's experiment. I know Qeltar's tests are about as good as you can get, but I still don't see the results of the test being nearly conclusive at all. Sure, warrior ring might have a somewhat peculiar pattern in that it has the most kills/hour in the most monster categories, but it's EXTREMELY inconsistent.

 

In your data, the first problem I have is that berserker ring alone shows lower kills/hour than no ring at all. Now, you've said that this only explains that the berserker ring shows no clear improvement, so it's obvious that it wont show a very large increase past random luck produced by the game engine. However, looking at the abyssal demon test, the difference between no ring and berserker ring is higher than the difference between berserker and warrior (much higher, by percentage).

 

Now, taking logic at hand, we can only assume that berserker ring does at least SOME extra damage to monsters, thus increasing the kill time. Considering this, if berserker ring doesn't show enough of an improvement to be visible over the game engine's errors, then that difference should be smaller than the difference between no ring and warrior, but it isn't. Your test shows that no ring produces 1.7 more kills/hour than berserker ring, but that same that also shows that warrior ring has only 1.1 more kills/hour than no ring.

 

If we assume that berserker ring has NO clear improvement (adds 0 kills/hour over the course of infinite kills), then the difference between berserker and no ring should be the error produced by the game engine. Taking that into account, warrior ring should have an increase of over 2 kills/hour for it to be even somewhat statistically significant. Looking at the data for abby demons, warrior ring falls well within that error, so (by your words and your data alone), warrior ring shows no clear improvement over game engine errors.

 

 

Now, there's another problem I have with your data (one of many, tbh). Looking at your living rock strikers data, you seem to put berserker ring over warrior ring in the test (much higher, once again, by percentage), even though (once again, by your words) warrior ring should be HELPING more so against monsters with higher defense than those with lower defense. Living rock strikers are an absolutely horrible task for the very reason that they have very high defense, compared to normal slayer monsters.

 

If we compare your living rock striker data to your abby demon data, we should be seeing a larger improvement in living rock strikers than we do in abby demons, but you have the complete opposite. This only goes to prove that your data isn't consistent enough to prove anything at all. You'd have to do, I'd say, about 30 more of those tests to prove anything significant, and even then, it wont be enough because game engine luck plays too big of a role.

[D Jay99]

The only flaw I see there abc is that you say living rock creatures have high defence; they don't. Turmoil gives the lowest possible defence boost there and the one task I did I barely hit any 0's.

[1230abcz]

The only flaw I see there abc is that you say living rock creatures have high defence; they don't. Turmoil gives the lowest possible defence boost there and the one task I did I barely hit any 0's.

 

They're strong against slash, which is what Qeltar used for his test. If you're using stab (or crush, forget which one), then they're really weak to it, but otherwise, they have high defense.

[D Jay99]

The only flaw I see there abc is that you say living rock creatures have high defence; they don't. Turmoil gives the lowest possible defence boost there and the one task I did I barely hit any 0's.

 

They're strong against slash, which is what Qeltar used for his test. If you're using stab (or crush, forget which one), then they're really weak to it, but otherwise, they have high defense.

Well I was using a whip + turmoil with normal super sets (was before I got ext pots) and averaged something like 100k melee xp/h. So if they have some kind of resistance to slash it doesn't really show.

[1230abcz]

The only flaw I see there abc is that you say living rock creatures have high defence; they don't. Turmoil gives the lowest possible defence boost there and the one task I did I barely hit any 0's.

 

They're strong against slash, which is what Qeltar used for his test. If you're using stab (or crush, forget which one), then they're really weak to it, but otherwise, they have high defense.

Well I was using a whip + turmoil with normal super sets (was before I got ext pots) and averaged something like 100k melee/h. So if they have some kind of resistance to slash it doesn't really show.

 

Eh. Either way, they have a higher defense than Abby Demons for sure. Also, with enough boosting pots/prayers, defense becomes fairly negligible, masking the effects of the +4 atk/str given by the rings, so Qeltar probably didn't use those.

[qeltar]

Human reflex time isn't a big enough factor in Qeltar's experiment. I know Qeltar's tests are about as good as you can get, but I still don't see the results of the test being nearly conclusive at all. Sure, warrior ring might have a somewhat peculiar pattern in that it has the most kills/hour in the most monster categories, but it's EXTREMELY inconsistent.

Apparently Morionic wants God Himself to descend and perform gameplay tests for him. That's the only way to ensure there is no human error in the results. ;)

 

And yes, the data is inconsistent. But remember that my conclusion is not that the warrior ring is clearly better than the berserker ring, only that it may be better. The real, primary conclusion is that the berserker ring is not nearly as good as people think it is.

 

If we assume that berserker ring has NO clear improvement (adds 0 kills/hour over the course of infinite kills), then the difference between berserker and no ring should be the error produced by the game engine. Taking that into account, warrior ring should have an increase of over 2 kills/hour for it to be even somewhat statistically significant. Looking at the data for abby demons, warrior ring falls well within that error, so (by your words and your data alone), warrior ring shows no clear improvement over game engine errors.

Correct. I don't believe there is any statistically significant data in this test to prove that the warrior ring provides a clear advantage. It's just that, with the data available, it is more likely that the warrior ring provides a higher benefit than the berserker ring, than the other way around. And given that one costs 1/10th of what the other does, *that* is noteworthy.

 

Now, there's another problem I have with your data (one of many, tbh). Looking at your living rock strikers data, you seem to put berserker ring over warrior ring in the test (much higher, once again, by percentage), even though (once again, by your words) warrior ring should be HELPING more so against monsters with higher defense than those with lower defense. Living rock strikers are an absolutely horrible task for the very reason that they have very high defense, compared to normal slayer monsters.

Strikers have very low defence against all melee attack forms that I've tried. If you look at report #1, you'll see roughly 50% more XP/hr with them than abyssals: about 90 k/hr as opposed to 60 k/hr. The results are consistent with this.

[1230abcz]

Apparently Morionic wants God Himself to descend and perform gameplay tests for him. That's the only way to ensure there is no human error in the results.

 

Where's your God now?!!! Lol.

 

 

 

And yes, the data is inconsistent. But remember that my conclusion is not that the warrior ring is clearly better than the berserker ring, only that it may be better. The real, primary conclusion is that the berserker ring is not nearly as good as people think it is.

 

Correct. I don't believe there is any statistically significant data in this test to prove that the warrior ring provides a clear advantage. It's just that, with the data available, it is more likely that the warrior ring provides a higher benefit than the berserker ring, than the other way around. And given that one costs 1/10th of what the other does, *that* is noteworthy.

 

 

See, the problem with coming to the conclusion that Warrior ring is better than berserker is by assuming that your data only applies to that set of circumstances. Given my game engine analysis using berserker ring as a base, warrior ring shows no clear improvement over that interval, so you can't assume ANYTHING at all with that set of data. It's too inconsistent with your other values.

 

 

Strikers have very low defence against all melee attack forms that I've tried. If you look at report #1, you'll see roughly 50% more XP/hr with them than abyssals: about 90 k/hr as opposed to 60 k/hr. The results are consistent with this.

 

My bad... I black marked strikers because I thought they had high defense. Either way, sucky task because they're too far apart...

 

Also, your test only proves that warrior ring is useful against monsters with high defense (black dragons and dark beasts, both of which have very high defense). That doesn't prove anything because it's already a known fact. Attack bonuses help more against monsters with high defense. People at corp wear Onyx (i) over Berserker (i) for this fact.

 

For the tests with monsters with decent defense, your test is inconclusive, thus proving nothing we didn't already know to begin with. The one thing it might prove is that warrior ring = berserker ring in terms of kills/hour against monsters with average defense.

 

 

 

Edit: The cost of warrior ring is why I have warrior ring and not berserker, lol. Don't have enough bank to cover its cost... Smithing/Construction is killing my bank... slowly... *cries*

[Mischlings]

Okay, let's say that someone was to attempt to answer this by counting the damage done per hit, to eliminate the problem of stopping a stopwatch at just the right moment. About how much testing would be required in order to come to a conclusive conclusion? (redundancy, yes I know that it's redundant)

[1230abcz]

Okay, let's say that someone was to attempt to answer this by counting the damage done per hit, to eliminate the problem of stopping a stopwatch at just the right moment. About how much testing would be required in order to come to a conclusive conclusion? (redundancy, yes I know that it's redundant)

 

 

Over 9000!@#@!#!@#!@#!@#!@#!@#!@#

 

 

 

... *sighs*

 

 

 

Lol. Damage done per hit... Would be interesting... Warrior would, no doubt, decrease the 0's hit overtime, but berserker would increase damage done per hit, but this test is really inaccurate. But I suppose that, given enough data points, it's easier to test than kills/hour.

 

My logic is that if the effects of both attack and str bonuses are linear (which is definitely the case with str bonuses, so it should apply both ways), then attack bonuses would no doubt give a higher percentage change mainly because str bonuses are more prevalent than attack bonuses with current set ups. Take a Godsword, for example. Str bonus is far greater than slash bonus, so adding a warrior ring would increase the atk bonuses by a higher percentage than berserker ring.

 

Edit @above: A full set up with current gear would provide a higher str than slash.

 

That's actually a really major problem I have with Qeltar's tests. Adding +4 str to 160 str bonus set is only a 2.5% increase in str bonuses, thus providing only that much of an increase in kills/hour. Adding a warrior ring onto a set up that only has 140 slash bonus would produce a 3% increase in attack bonuses, which would lead to the incorrect conclusion that warrior ring > berserker ring.

 

 

Edit: I suck at paraphrasing. And math. The ENTIRE set up would give a higher str bonus than atk bonus. Godswords have equal atk/str stats.

[Robert_R]

Can't we just say warrior ring for high defence monsters, berserker ring for low defence monsters and ferocious ring for kuradel's dungeon...

[1230abcz]

They are :D Lol. Berserker ring is obviously better than Warrior ring with current potions/prayers. Turmoil + Ext sets increase accuracy so much, that warrior ring's effects are nearly negligible, thus making berserker far superior. In the few places where monsters have very high defense (GWD, Corp, KBD, Dark Beasts, etc), warrior ring would still be on top.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

Apparently Morionic wants God Himself to descend and perform gameplay tests for him. That's the only way to ensure there is no human error in the results. ;)

Record the damage done by individual hits, whether they be misses or not

Make sure you do not record data after the first 1-2 hits against a monster, so that Knockout damage doesn't get factored in

 

Voila, no human error in your test

There *are* good ways to perform gameplay tests without human error.

[qeltar]

Berserker ring is obviously better than Warrior ring with current potions/prayers.

That's not obvious at all.

 

 

Record the damage done by individual hits, whether they be misses or not

Make sure you do not record data after the first 1-2 hits against a monster, so that Knockout damage doesn't get factored in

Not unless someone here is volunteering to pay me by the hour to do it.

[la la la]

I think that there are too many variables here to effectively decide which ring is better, and you waste more time debating it than you would help by using the ring that is slightly better in a certain circumstance.

 

Not unless someone here is volunteering to pay me by the hour to do it.

It frustrates me that you expect pay for the work you do for the runescape community.

[SirIzenhime]

living rocks have higher slash def then Abyssal demons? This is news to me, I've never noticed it. I've noticed the opposite actually.

[qeltar]

It frustrates me that you expect pay for the work you do for the runescape community.

I wasn't being serious. But it frustrates *me* that I spend hours and hours of time already providing useful free reports, and some people not only don't appreciate it, they feel fine making demands on my time.

 

Do you know how long it would take to do what he suggested? We're talking about laboriously writing down every damage splat from killing hundreds of monsters. That's pretty ridiculous, and it wouldn't eliminate human error from the equation anyway.

[Bladewing]

The aversion to your test is that it's poorly designed/controlled and has far too little data to draw any significant conclusions.

 

If you're content with drawing false conclusions from tests like that, that's fine. Just don't spew them like truth.

[pulli23]

It frustrates me that you expect pay for the work you do for the runescape community.

I wasn't being serious. But it frustrates *me* that I spend hours and hours of time already providing useful free reports, but some people apparently expect me to spend a solid week of my life laboriously writing down every damage splat from killing hundreds of monsters, just because they have some nonsensical aversion to my testing that they can't even explain.

Neither can you :P - I would've loved to see what the standard error would be in your test. I think it's about 2-3 times the difference between warrior/beserker in the graphs.. (meaning you can only guess with a 10-20% certainity that a is better than b in certain cases.

 

But if you look at the graphs, you'll notice the differences are very, very minimal, even to the "original" value. - Wouldn't another ring be more beneficial in such cases? (wealth, or my favourite - the slayer ring.. It saves 1 inventory space).

[qeltar]

The aversion to your test is that it's poorly designed/controlled and has far too little data to draw any significant conclusions.

 

If you're content with drawing false conclusions from tests like that, that's fine. Just don't spew them like truth.

Let me know when *you've* done a comparable test, sport.

 

I drew no false conclusion. The berserker ring does not provide a statistically significant benefit over the warrior ring under most combat conditions, as the test shows pretty clearly. It's a vastly overpriced and overrated item.

[Bladewing]

I actually have a moderate amount of data testing berserker vs warrior on a few different monsters, but I don't have enough data yet to make any statistically significant conclusions at a=95, so I haven't published it because I'm being conservative.

 

EDIT: Much more than 30 minutes on a half dozen monsters.

[qeltar]

Of course you do. :rolleyes:

[1230abcz]

Of course you do. :rolleyes:

 

Such a well crafted argument!

 

 

Edit: *sigh*... Images suck... [img.]You, sir, have won the internet[/img.]

[Bladewing]

It's much easier to attempt to discredit his opposition than actually defend his own stance. Well played, qeltar.

[qeltar]

Actually, it seems that what's really easy is to snipe from the peanut gallery while providing nothing of any substance to contradict the data presented.

 

That's okay though -- it doesn't change anything.