They change drop rates on GGR? Wiki full of BS?

[Andad_Filla]

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

I'd rather ask, what else are you going to spend your plat on?

The same thing we do every night, Shadey, make and twink more alts.

[NPC]

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

The real question here is what slows your leveling down more, camping this ring for 100 hours (aka 60,000 med ticks) getting no XP or having to med for 1 more tick to recoup that invis mana? Trick question the correct answer is play a dark elf or wood elf charm class and use mana free hide while you are medding instead of dropping 8k on a gimmick or having to put invis on your spell bar at all! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

FYI-Enchanters use it for charm breaks not for hiding. Instant cast invisibility makes all the difference in those situations.

[Shadeynight]

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

FYI-Enchanters use it for charm breaks not for hiding. Instant cast invisibility makes all the difference in those situations.

Hide can give you the same benefit of the GGR, it's just not 100%. DE enchanters might suck balls at cha, but it's a non-small benefit in the early levels.

[freezzo]

I camped this on and off over a three week period and killed over 200 couriers before I got my ring. I had to go back and tally up my logs, because I didn't believe I had killed that many. I witnessed other people come in and get them after 15 minutes of camping.

[Dustyslippers]

160 sample size is far to small to make assumptions...

I got my ring in 30 minutes and 4 couriers. in rngesus we trust.

[fadetree]

There's actually no such thing as (provable) randomness, so there's no way to say 'it's just bad luck', only a subjective 'reasonableness' criteria. But yeah, the wiki is probably F.O.S., that ring is a much rarer drop than 3.5%. From what I hear around the EQverse.

[mtkoan]

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

There's actually no such thing as (provable) randomness, so there's no way to say 'it's just bad luck', only a subjective 'reasonableness' criteria.

There's actually no such thing as (provable) reality, so there's no way to say we're not in a simulation, only a consistent subjective experience.

[Arvan]

Imagine thinking probability works like OP thinks it does

[DMN]

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

Imagine thinking probability works like OP thinks it does

Imagine trying to flex on a guy who loses more brain cells during a weekend bender than you were born with.

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

[cd288]

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

Imagine trying to flex on a guy who loses more brain cells during a weekend bender than you were born with.

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

You kinda just insulted yourself there a little bit