|  | 
| 
 Spawn Rate of Named Mobs on Hunter/Forager Cycle Named mobs on the Hunter and Forager Cycle spawn far too infrequently.  On Live, one could typically spend an evening in TT and get muliple nameds to pop over time.  On P99, one can typically spend an evening there and see not a single named to pop after killing Hunters and Foragers the entire time. I hesitated to post this because all I have is annecdotal evidence. But I have heard people other than myself lament this situation recenty as well. I think it's time to at least raise the issue. | 
| 
 I'll second what he said.  I've spent over a week there killing foragers non-stop and have yet to pop a named. | 
| 
 I show 10% spawn rate for rares.  On both cycles.   1/10 isn't bad when the npcs instant repop after death no? | 
| 
 One out of every ten spawns being a named mob would seem approximately right to me, though it may have even been more frequent on Live (named mobs were simply not very rare).  In any event however, a one in ten spawn rate does not seem to be happening in actual practice - despite what apparently resides in the pertinent database column/record. I understand that actual practice would only approach one in ten over time - but something seems to be wrong. I've been there multiple times and killed enough mobs to have for sure seen mulitple nameds spawn, but I've never even seen one spawn. | 
| 
 Yeah seems like the RNG is stuck or something, just like on the frenzied in LGuk! | 
| 
 Just happened upon this thread accidentally. Its not 10%. I know it shows 10% but its not. Its about 3-4%. I solo'd the forager cycle for over 2 entire levels as a bard, got about 90 people seb keyed, like 10 iks bps, few masks few daggers (aka I been on those cycles way too much) it averages about a named every 30 kills. Can contact me in game if you need more info on either of the cycles =) | 
| 
 Code: }elsif(($random_result>=90) && ($random_result<=100)){ | 
| 
 Seems to me that if initial $random_result value were always garuanteed to be between 1 and 100 inclusive, and if that value really was random with that 1 to 100 range over time, then yeah, you'd get a pop 10% of the time. However, the code simply checks for greater to or equal to 90 and less than or equal to 100. Are you certain that the pre-check value of $random_result always falls between 1 and 100 inclusive? Because if not, you aren't getting 10% out of this. Also if the distribution is not really random, you aren't getting 10% out of this. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that the results are not what is expected. Unless several people, mutliple times, are getting really unlucky rolls from the rng, there is something wrong here. I appreciate your willingness to listen and respond. I also must allow the possibility than I am wrong (it has been known to happen). But I think there is more than meets the eye going on here. | 
| 
 Quote: 
 http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__...packageart.jpg This explains everything! Damned Decepticons have even hidden themselves P1999! | 
| 
 Quote: 
 Code: #nilbog | 
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:17 PM. | 
	Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.