Looking for goblin archeologist in Permafrost

[zelld52]

Archaeologist the one found on the ledge behind the broken wall leading to the caverns? See him all the time

[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?

[Ciderpress]

All wiki values should be taken with a grain of salt because like all wikis anybody can change them. You're free to reference the change log but that won't really tell you much about spawn rates specifically.

I've definitely been here though; trying to farm some totally antiquated item to gear a new alt, usually because it's never for sale (because it's so old and nobody farms it), and then I consult the wiki and I'm not getting the mob and I start to get paranoid that maybe there's something bugged about it and it just hasn't been reported because nobody ever camps it anymore. It's a feedback loop of everquest.

[kjs86z2]

I XP'd around there on my twink paladin. Easy to find.

[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.

[Goregasmic]

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.

[cd288]

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

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.

To be clear, I'm not saying don't edit if there's no % data on the page. But if there's a % on the page, it may come from EQ emu data, which is the most accurate in theory data we have and likely more accurate than a playing experience. So in those cases, it's better to add a note saying "The wiki says this %, here was my experience killing 100+ cycles"

Quite frankly, with the way RNG is in this game I wouldn't even say that killing a mob 100 times provides a lot of clarity on spawn/drop chances. You only have to search these forums to see absurd variations in RNG...people taking like several hundred kills to get something and others getting it in less than 50 kills for instance. It's just all anecdotal so it should be noted as such if you edit the Wiki.

[cd288]

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

stuff in there I think

This is why it should be noted as anecdotal evidence

[Goregasmic]

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

To be clear, I'm not saying don't edit if there's no % data on the page. But if there's a % on the page, it may come from EQ emu data, which is the most accurate in theory data we have and likely more accurate than a playing experience. So in those cases, it's better to add a note saying "The wiki says this %, here was my experience killing 100+ cycles"

Quite frankly, with the way RNG is in this game I wouldn't even say that killing a mob 100 times provides a lot of clarity on spawn/drop chances. You only have to search these forums to see absurd variations in RNG...people taking like several hundred kills to get something and others getting it in less than 50 kills for instance. It's just all anecdotal so it should be noted as such if you edit the Wiki.

So what do you think is an accurate sample, what's an acceptable margin of error and do you think anyone in their sane mind would ever kill that many?

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

This is why it should be noted as anecdotal evidence

Which is exactly what I've done.