Looking for goblin archeologist in Permafrost

[BornInOz]

I've been camped in Permafrost where the goblin archeologist supposedly spawns (421, 190 per the wiki entry). Per the wiki, he's a 20% spawn probability and I've been through at least 9 spawn cycles and he hasn't shown up yet. Since the spawn timer in permafrost is over 20 minutes, it's getting to be quite a grind. Am I just on a bad luck streak here or are there any known bugs with this spawn?

In case anyone is wondering, I was hoping to snag a dented brass mask as one of his drops, but at this point I'm looking at alternatives.

Thanks!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If you just want a cheap mask with strength...

https://wiki.project1999.com/Platinum_Ruby_Veil

Or

https://wiki.project1999.com/Tribal_War_Mask

Work well. Cost will be between like 200 and 400 plat in green ec tunnel.

If you are doing a self found run, dented brass mask is probably one of the better options, as most of not all str masks with 4 STR or higher are dropped in higher level zones off mobs 40+.

[Trexller]

someone in KC will give you this for free or dirt cheap

https://wiki.project1999.com/Sarnak-Hide_Mask

[BornInOz]

Thanks for the replies, the alternatives you guys suggested are some of the exact ones I was looking at.

I strongly suspect the wiki entry on the archeologist spawn rate is wrong (20% seems way too high). With the low spawn rate x a low spawn rate on the dented brass mask, combined with the long spawn cycle timer in the zone, I'm pulling the plug on this adventure and pursuing just buying one of the other options (if anyone reading this has one for sale, DM me [yes, I've posted a WTB on the trade forum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] ]).

[Goregasmic]

Yo, I cleaned out a bunch of spawns in the area (king, scryer, alchemist) for a whole bunch of rounds and updated the wikis accordingly, I noticed a few seemed inaccurate.

I think I didn't touch the acheologist entry because i got him like 3 times in 9 rounds but I didn't consider that a big enough sample to update the wiki confidently. That was this winter so quite recently. Yeah he still spawns but the mask is rated as ultra rare and I was skeptical because that's rare for mobs this level. More of a kunark thing too.

By the way I got 1 mask and 2 packs and the mask is sitting in my monk's bank in cabilis, you can have it for free if you're in the area on green. I got him a better mask so this one is collecting dust.

[cd288]

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

Yo, I cleaned out a bunch of spawns in the area (king, scryer, alchemist) for a whole bunch of rounds and updated the wikis accordingly, I noticed a few seemed inaccurate.

I think I didn't touch the acheologist entry because i got him like 3 times in 9 rounds but I didn't consider that a big enough sample to update the wiki confidently. That was this winter so quite recently. Yeah he still spawns but the mask is rated as ultra rare and I was skeptical because that's rare for mobs this level. More of a kunark thing too.

By the way I got 1 mask and 2 packs and the mask is sitting in my monk's bank in cabilis, you can have it for free if you're in the area on green. I got him a better mask so this one is collecting dust.

I know you're trying to be helpful, but with respect this is one of the ways things on the Wiki become inaccurate. I'm not saying the spawn chance for the mob(s) referenced was definitely accurate, but it could be.

There are a ton of examples of things with X% chance of happening taking an immense amount of cycles to occur. Just because you killed a PH 50-100 times and the other mob didn't spawn X% of the time doesn't mean you should change spawn percentages on the Wiki. That's anecdotal evidence that is completely explainable by really bad luck with RNG.

At best it should be a note to the spawn chance about your experience rather than changing percentage chances.

[Goregasmic]

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

I know you're trying to be helpful, but with respect this is one of the ways things on the Wiki become inaccurate. I'm not saying the spawn chance for the mob(s) referenced was definitely accurate, but it could be.

There are a ton of examples of things with X% chance of happening taking an immense amount of cycles to occur. Just because you killed a PH 50-100 times and the other mob didn't spawn X% of the time doesn't mean you should change spawn percentages on the Wiki. That's anecdotal evidence that is completely explainable by really bad luck with RNG.

At best it should be a note to the spawn chance about your experience rather than changing percentage chances.

As far as I know all percentages are set by players filling out the wiki? I was looking at a history of Lguk wiki changes and it seems a lot of mobs were entered with a base value of 3% which is flat out wrong. If I do 4 rounds of a mob and get him once I'm not going to change it to 25% but if I do 40 rounds and get it 4 times, 10% sounds good enough for a wiki.

Most wiki entries have no data to back up the spawn percentage so how are you supposed to know who's experience is the most accurate? I try leaving a justificative note in the discussion section or in the edit log when I make changes but it isn't realistic to expect those percentages to be perfect but "close enough" gives a good idea to people about what they're getting into. You'll never know if you had good/bad luck and no one else will either. I'm usually not going to bother modifying single digit discrepancies but when it says like 3% and I got the mob to pop 5 times in 15 spawns it seems more likely that 3% was off than I had 0,000001% occurence happen.

Like, people say 1% for the rotting skeleton but is there anyone who did like 5000 spawns to make sure it is accurate? Is there even a consensus on what constitutes accurate samples?

[cd288]

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

As far as I know all percentages are set by players filling out the wiki? I was looking at a history of Lguk wiki changes and it seems a lot of mobs were entered with a base value of 3% which is flat out wrong. If I do 4 rounds of a mob and get him once I'm not going to change it to 25% but if I do 40 rounds and get it 4 times, 10% sounds good enough for a wiki.

Most wiki entries have no data to back up the spawn percentage so how are you supposed to know who's experience is the most accurate? I try leaving a justificative note in the discussion section or in the edit log when I make changes but it isn't realistic to expect those percentages to be perfect but "close enough" gives a good idea to people about what they're getting into. You'll never know if you had good/bad luck and no one else will either. I'm usually not going to bother modifying single digit discrepancies but when it says like 3% and I got the mob to pop 5 times in 15 spawns it seems more likely that 3% was off than I had 0,000001% occurence happen.

Like, people say 1% for the rotting skeleton but is there anyone who did like 5000 spawns to make sure it is accurate? Is there even a consensus on what constitutes accurate samples?

IIRC in a lot of cases the original added percentage just the latest data mining that people could find. May not be classic or accurate, but we're not sure. So it's better to leave anecdotes of experiences than to flatly change the percentage.

[loramin]

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

As far as I know all percentages are set by players filling out the wiki? I was looking at a history of Lguk wiki changes and it seems a lot of mobs were entered with a base value of 3% which is flat out wrong. If I do 4 rounds of a mob and get him once I'm not going to change it to 25% but if I do 40 rounds and get it 4 times, 10% sounds good enough for a wiki.

Most wiki entries have no data to back up the spawn percentage so how are you supposed to know who's experience is the most accurate? I try leaving a justificative note in the discussion section or in the edit log when I make changes but it isn't realistic to expect those percentages to be perfect but "close enough" gives a good idea to people about what they're getting into. You'll never know if you had good/bad luck and no one else will either. I'm usually not going to bother modifying single digit discrepancies but when it says like 3% and I got the mob to pop 5 times in 15 spawns it seems more likely that 3% was off than I had 0,000001% occurence happen.

Like, people say 1% for the rotting skeleton but is there anyone who did like 5000 spawns to make sure it is accurate? Is there even a consensus on what constitutes accurate samples?

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.

[BornInOz]

That's a very generous offer. I do, in fact, have a character, Llais / necromancer in the cabilis area on green. When would be convenient to meet up?