Spawn Rate of Named Mobs on Hunter/Forager Cycle

[mwatt]

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.

[Kevlar]

Yeah seems like the RNG is stuck or something, just like on the frenzied in LGuk!

[Ungriim]

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 =)

[nilbog]

}elsif(($random_result>=90) && ($random_result<=100)){

Definitely 10%

[mwatt]

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.

[Pomaikai]

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

But I think there is more than meets the eye going on here.

More than meets the eye?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This explains everything! Damned Decepticons have even hidden themselves P1999!

[nilbog]

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

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.

Locs and names have been classified to protect the identity of the npcs involved.

#nilbog
#forager cycle

sub EVENT_SPAWN {
quest::settimer("forage",5);
}

my $forager = classified;
my @aRareID = (classified);

sub EVENT_TIMER 
{

my $randomrare = quest::ChooseRandom(@aRareID);
my $random_result = 0;
my $random_area = 0;
my $random_x = 0;
my $random_y = 0;

if($timer eq "forage") {
$random_result = int(rand(100));
$random_area = int(rand(classified));
$random_x = int(rand(classified));
$random_y = int(rand(classified));

    quest::stoptimer("forage");
if (($random_area >=0) && ($random_area<=60)) {
    if(($random_result>=0) && ($random_result<90)){
    quest::spawn2($forager,classified);
    }elsif(($random_result>=90) && ($random_result<=100)){
    quest::spawn2($randomrare,classified);
    }
    }
elsif (($random_area >60) && ($random_area<=100)) {
    if(($random_result>=0) && ($random_result<90)){
    quest::spawn2($forager,classified);
    }elsif(($random_result>=90) && ($random_result<=100)){
    quest::spawn2($randomrare,classified);
    }
}
}
}

sub EVENT_SIGNAL {

if ($entity_list->GetMobByNpcTypeID($forager)) {
    return 1;
}
foreach $rareID (@aRareID) 
{
    if ($entity_list->GetMobByNpcTypeID($rareID)) {
        return 1;
    }
}
quest::settimer("forage", 1);
}

10%

[mwatt]

First off, I'm grateful that you took the time to lookup and paste a secure version of the code here. Very nice - and very supportive of what you are saying. I'm not a Perl guy particularly, but I can see that you are calling rand(100) which if I remember right just becomes a standard call to the C library version of the rand function. Which means, if you are not improperly seeding the random number generator, I'm certain you are going to get a random number between 0 and 100.

Hard to fight what appear to be the facts. It does appear to be about 1 in 10 nameds for each of the Forager and Hunter mobs. Let us for the sake of argument (since it looks like I lost the argument [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] ) accept that it really IS 1 in 10. From this jumping off point I'd like to suggest that this percentage is too low. In practice, the existing behavior seems wrong when comparing what happens on p99 to what I and several other people recall of the way things worked on Live.

Would you please give some consideration to the possibility of recoding this to be a greater than 10% chance for a rare to spawn after the demise of a Hunter and Forager?

Thank you for all the time spent on this.