Hey Jammers! Welcome to the Animal Jam Whip!
A week or so ago, my friend henrythegreat4 emailed me with some interesting information.
Included in his email was a link to an AJ Wiki thread. This thread, by a user named Kitsoon A, discusses the question a lot of Jammers are asking; just how did these obscure variants of classic Jamaaliday items enter the game?
Well, according to the article, it turns out that items such as the black and white Jamaaliday socks, the red icicle horn, and the magenta gingerbread top hat were actually never on the calendar.
Wait a minute! Didn't AJHQ say it was possible to get the black and white Jamaaliday socks on the day they were the gift for the calendar?
Correct. But we don't know if they're telling the truth.
Kitsoon states the following:
"'Cheesy Potatoes :)' (A friend of mine) found that in the code for all Jamaaliday Calendar clothing items, the variant is decided with "Math.random". This is a piece of code in JavaScript to simply randomly generate something, in this case; the item variant which spawns when opening the gift. AJHQ claims that they're on the Calendar with a very low chance, but a chance as low to the point where there'd be no solid proof whatsoever that they're even obtainable is impossible with a simple "Math.random" script, unless of course other things were added into the empty "()" to give that effect, but alas it is just a simple code to randomly generate giving equal chances of spawning to all variants.
Possible Question: So the variants are all programmed to have equal chances, why don't they all have equal chances of being won?
This is because of what's written before the code; "(loc2.colors.length - 1)". The part that says loc2.colors.length likely gets the variants ready for spawning. The "-1" part of this code causes one of theses variants to be unable to spawn, by default it is the final variant. This means any Jamaaliday Calendar clothing item using the "-1" is programmed for the final variant to never spawn. And this is in the code for every single Jamaaliday Clothing item.''
If you want to learn more, read her full article by clicking here.
So, in conclusion, we've been given evidence that these unreleased items were actually hacked into the game instead of being won through the calendar fair and square.
Is AJHQ aware of this coding error? We aren't sure. Some Jammers complain that when they try to ask questions to AJHQ concerning this certain topic, their comments are ignored or deleted. We don't know if this was intentional or a complete mistake.
My personal opinion on this is similar to an AJ Wiki administrator named Zephyrim. They believe this was an accident on AJHQ's part, and that the unreleased variants were originally supposed to be available for Jammers to win, but this coding issue caused the unreleased variants to never truly exist in the first place. The only way to receive the unreleased variants is through hacking (or being traded/gifted one, if that wasn't obvious already).
That's all for today. Let me know what your opinion is in the comments. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Bye Jammers!
A week or so ago, my friend henrythegreat4 emailed me with some interesting information.
Included in his email was a link to an AJ Wiki thread. This thread, by a user named Kitsoon A, discusses the question a lot of Jammers are asking; just how did these obscure variants of classic Jamaaliday items enter the game?
Well, according to the article, it turns out that items such as the black and white Jamaaliday socks, the red icicle horn, and the magenta gingerbread top hat were actually never on the calendar.
Wait a minute! Didn't AJHQ say it was possible to get the black and white Jamaaliday socks on the day they were the gift for the calendar?
Correct. But we don't know if they're telling the truth.
Kitsoon states the following:
"'Cheesy Potatoes :)' (A friend of mine) found that in the code for all Jamaaliday Calendar clothing items, the variant is decided with "Math.random". This is a piece of code in JavaScript to simply randomly generate something, in this case; the item variant which spawns when opening the gift. AJHQ claims that they're on the Calendar with a very low chance, but a chance as low to the point where there'd be no solid proof whatsoever that they're even obtainable is impossible with a simple "Math.random" script, unless of course other things were added into the empty "()" to give that effect, but alas it is just a simple code to randomly generate giving equal chances of spawning to all variants.
Possible Question: So the variants are all programmed to have equal chances, why don't they all have equal chances of being won?
This is because of what's written before the code; "(loc2.colors.length - 1)". The part that says loc2.colors.length likely gets the variants ready for spawning. The "-1" part of this code causes one of theses variants to be unable to spawn, by default it is the final variant. This means any Jamaaliday Calendar clothing item using the "-1" is programmed for the final variant to never spawn. And this is in the code for every single Jamaaliday Clothing item.''
If you want to learn more, read her full article by clicking here.
So, in conclusion, we've been given evidence that these unreleased items were actually hacked into the game instead of being won through the calendar fair and square.
Is AJHQ aware of this coding error? We aren't sure. Some Jammers complain that when they try to ask questions to AJHQ concerning this certain topic, their comments are ignored or deleted. We don't know if this was intentional or a complete mistake.
My personal opinion on this is similar to an AJ Wiki administrator named Zephyrim. They believe this was an accident on AJHQ's part, and that the unreleased variants were originally supposed to be available for Jammers to win, but this coding issue caused the unreleased variants to never truly exist in the first place. The only way to receive the unreleased variants is through hacking (or being traded/gifted one, if that wasn't obvious already).
That's all for today. Let me know what your opinion is in the comments. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Bye Jammers!
Wow, that's pretty crazy. Because I remember that sweets & i were re-freshing many times, in order to try and get these items. It never worked. But if this is true, that would explain it. And, that would also raise the question, what other mistakes could AJHQ have made?
ReplyDeleteInteresting thought.
DeleteFrom what I've seen it clearly wasn't a "mistake;" I confronted AJHQ about it on Instagram through comments and DM, and they literally deleted my comments and told me "no you could get them they were just very rare" through DM even when I sent them literal video proof
DeleteHmmm that’s interesting
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, I remember, I saw that thread on the wiki too.
ReplyDelete- whiteseal187 AJ
I wonder if AJHQ will fix this or if they'll let the jammers who have them keep them. This was interesting to know. ;)
ReplyDeleteFantasyforest123
I'm glad you found it interesting!
DeleteThat's very interesting...
ReplyDeleteHi Naffy! I'm back into AJ again and renamed my blog (thats why its not available anymore.) It's name is thedailyyjamaa.blogspot.com. Yes, 2 y's in daily because thedailyjamaa.blogspot.com was taken (and it looks kinda like a joke blog XD) anyway, just to let you know!
ReplyDelete~Princess
Hey there! Nice to see you again! I'll check out your new blog ASAP!
Deleteoh hey we're getting noticed :,)
ReplyDeleteI'm a friend of Kitsoon, we were in this investigation together (even though he did most of the work, all I really did was try to get us noticed lol)
but ye if anyone has any further questions just ask me
ReplyDeletealso here's a video of cheesy hacking the socks in if you're interested
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/h_497_jF3YQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di33Ahfnzz4
ReplyDeleteAJHQ copyright striked the video 1nval1d AJ posted. They are trying to cover it up.
oh what
Deleteajhq no
bad
stop
Apparently AJHQ made a DMCA or something complaint about that wiki thread and said it was "against their copyright"
ReplyDeleteI can understand why it they reported it but "copyright" is a little too far...