Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There are two sources of numbers in the wiki. The first set were entered automatically when the wiki was first created (from EQ Emulator data), and the second set were entered by players over time.
Presumably (this was long before my time), P99 began as an EQ Emu clone, and so the wiki started with EQ Emu data. It was a smart move, because a lot of EQ never got changed, so the live/EQ Emu data for a mob may well be the same as the P99 version.
But of course ... plenty did change, and it's not like Nilbog publishes a changelog. Thus, there's no way to keep the wiki up to date automatically. The best anyone can do is update it on a case-by-case basis.
|
CD288 says we shouldn't touch it basically and I understand his point but like, some entries don't even have spawn % to this day, there's a few entries that have a multiple spawn locs seem to have the spawn% divided by the number of locations. Also, nearly all entries that have a spawn% >5% seem to be a multiple of 5 but every now and then you'll find a 13% and wonder if someone got a 1/8 spawn and entered it as such. It's weird. I've seen too many inconsistencies to believe the DB export is flawless. I was looking at the loot table of the frenzied velium broodling and there's stuff in there I think it is impossible for it to drop and some other stuff with the percentages wayyyy off but after checking they're from the original upload.
And like I said, most people don't leave a note on where their data is from so it is hard to sort out.
I don't feel like we need to go into debating the designation
of acceptable sample sizes. There's mobs I've done nearly 100 cycles of, I think they're fair game for an edit if they're like 20%+ spawn rates. If your sample is big enough adding/substracting 1-2 named wouldn't move the percentage much I think its is solid data.