Wiki question: location and spawn percentages

[Goregasmic]

Googled this and couldn't find anything at all.

I use the wiki a lot and try to contribute as much as I can and I've been puzzled by something for a while. The location line for a mob entry goes like this:

Location (map): xx% @ (coordinates)

This is pretty self explanatory but for the % part I've noticed variance. For most named mobs it is the chance it has to spawn but for a small but significant number of mobs it is the percentage it has to spawn at a given location. Like the necrosis scarab in sebilis has 33% listed as he can spawn in 3 different spots but for having camped him before I know his actual spawn chance is around 3% (or ~9% per round).

Is there an actual template convention for this?

Speaking of template convention... is there such a thing? I kind of noticed mob entries are supposed to stay somewhat clean but some also have semi elaborate guides on the "front page" while such guides are kept in the discussion section in other entries. Personally I try to put hard and useful info on the front page while keeping speculation/partial information to the discussion but sometimes even partial info can be relevant. Are there good practice rules for this?

Thanks.

[PatChapp]

I have spent a lot of time at ng and never seen the necrosis spawn anywhere but the middle. I have no idea what the % stuff is referring to on the wiki,I just usually assume the wiki is unreliable

[loramin]

Originally Posted by PatChapp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just usually assume the wiki is unreliable

When it comes to the percentages (like the zone experience modifiers), this is the best assumption.

It's important to remember that P99 started out long ago with a standard EQ Emulator codebase. When Rhavin (the original P99 wiki god/hero) started the wiki, they used a lot of data from the stock EQ Emu.

But of course, P99 is "classic", and the stock EQ Emu stuff is based on ... well I'm not sure exactly, but well after the classic period. So, as the P99 devs have fixed more and more things to be classic (or, in the case of ZEMs, just changed them to be different/mysterious), the wiki data has gotten more and more incorrect.

Still, a lot of the EQ Emu numbers are actually still correct for P99, because a lot of the game is still the same on live. Similarly, the P99 staff generally didn't change a terrible ZEM zone into a great one or vice versa. Permafrost's ZEM has definitely changed over the years, but the polar bear pits have always been a good place to XP ... it's just that how good has changed.

It's for this reason that the wiki still keeps this "bad" data: removing it en masse would make the wiki even more inaccurate. Instead, the best we can do is fix each page, one-by-one, with P99-accurate data.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Goregasmic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Speaking of template convention... is there such a thing? I kind of noticed mob entries are supposed to stay somewhat clean but some also have semi elaborate guides on the "front page" while such guides are kept in the discussion section in other entries. Personally I try to put hard and useful info on the front page while keeping speculation/partial information to the discussion but sometimes even partial info can be relevant. Are there good practice rules for this?

In short, no. Certain pages (eg. the mob pages) do have a wiki-template, and that helps keep things somewhat organized. However, the wiki is a community effort, and there's no "you must watch this video or read this manual to edit" requirement ... so any "standards" beyond the templates just come from each contributor trying to match what's already there.

However, I think you got the core idea right. The mob (or any other normal) pages should have ... unambiguous, non-subjective information. For instance, this mob spawns at X spot, roughly Y% of the time.

Anything subjective generally belongs in a guide page (or a discussion page, although really those are supposed to be a place for wiki editors to communicate with each other). If you have some thoughts on the best way to kill gnolls, you should create a "Guide to killing gnolls", rather than put that sort of advice on the Gnoll page.

[Goregasmic]

Originally Posted by PatChapp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have spent a lot of time at ng and never seen the necrosis spawn anywhere but the middle. I have no idea what the % stuff is referring to on the wiki,I just usually assume the wiki is unreliable

Sorry, I know on live it spawns at all three spots so it is the first example that came to mind and when I checked the P99 wiki it said 33% so I assumed it was the same. Bad example but I've seen a couple similar spawn situations on p99 and I think people understand the point.

As for the wiki accuracy, maybe it used to be bad but after a decade+ I find it pretty solid. Mob locations I tested were always right on and the spawn percentage is very often within 5%. Only thing that is not reliable is drop rates. On a 10% spawn mob with a 10% drop rate it would take several hundred cycles to get a reliable idea so outside highly contested mobs it isnt really happening. Who wants to do the pained soul 10 times just to see if it is truly 1%? Overall most stuff is pretty close though.

[Goregasmic]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

However, I think you got the core idea right. The mob (or any other normal) pages should have ... unambiguous, non-subjective information. For instance, this mob spawns at X spot, roughly Y% of the time.

Anything subjective generally belongs in a guide page (or a discussion page, although really those are supposed to be a place for wiki editors to communicate with each other). If you have some thoughts on the best way to kill gnolls, you should create a "Guide to killing gnolls", rather than put that sort of advice on the Gnoll page.

Alright makes sense.

Yeah I understand the principle behind the discussion page but there's nowhere else as handy really to leave a "bread crumb" of info to piece together a mystery or better accuracy without smudging the actual page. I've seen people solve spawn mechanics by sharing info on the discussion page so in the end if it betters the actual page it is all good with me.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Goregasmic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've seen people solve spawn mechanics by sharing info on the discussion page so in the end if it betters the actual page it is all good with me.

One other minor detail: the old wiki template had a maximum number of locs. If a mob had more locs than the max, people would put all of the locs into the discussion area, and just add a note saying "see discussion".

This is why many pages still have spawn info in the discussion area ... but the template no longer has that limitation, so it's just a relic from the past. In fact, I've since added a feature to show all of the locs on a map (which only works if they're in the loc section, not the discussion), so if you see info in the discussion feel free to move it back.

[cd288]

For what it's worth, I don't mind having "guide" type info on the mob page. Saves me from having to go to multiple spots to get all the info I need. All the guides on the Wiki are super helpful of course, but I don't think there's a problem putting detailed mob guide info on the relevant mob's page.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For what it's worth, I don't mind having "guide" type info on the mob page. Saves me from having to go to multiple spots to get all the info I need. All the guides on the Wiki are super helpful of course, but I don't think there's a problem putting detailed mob guide info on the relevant mob's page.

Well again, it's not a hard and fast rule, as everything in the wikis is just done by convention. Also, if you use the "objective vs. subjective" distinction I mentioned, even a lot of "guide" info can still belong on the mob page.

But, I do think it does make sense to limit not just mob pages, but most wiki pages, to being "encyclopedia-like". Doing this helps solve the signal-to-noise ratio problem (ie. the more text there is on the page, the harder it is to find what you're looking for).

If there's lots of exposition about how to kill the mob, that might be handy for one person, but make it harder for others to find the core details they came there for. Also, that "guide stuff" might not even be relevant (eg. knowing that you can pacify mob X to get to mob Y is handy for an Enchanter, but worthless to a Shaman).

If the page has "just the facts", everyone can get the core info they need from it, and then it can also link to any relevant guide pages. That way even people wanting further info can still get to it easily.