Talk:Blood Stern

perexp

(LordMark)>Infobox minimum Per*Exp was incorrect. (1023 => 1250) ref:[1]
@LordMark: What makes you think that that 1023 perexp (31*33, as per related edit comment. ref:[2]) is incorrect ?
--.MvGulik. 12:35, 10 October 2018 (EDT)

Two reasons: first the wiki says 1250 everywhere except that infobox, secondly I had over 1100 for quite a long time and hadn't found any then when I leveled up my exploration beyond 1250 I instantly found one...I know this is far from conclusive but if we were to argue about which is more likely, what reason would we have to choose 1023? Nobody posted any proof of finding any with such low per*exp, and if they had I would argue that there could be another explanation for them finding one. Either way, the values should be all the same across the wiki, let alone the same page, wouldn't you agree?

--LordMark 20:47, 12 October 2018 (EDT)

>I had over 1100 for quite a long time and hadn't found any.

Could you be a bit more clear about the "quite a long time" part ? (x-days/-weeks/-months)

--.MvGulik. 23:41, 12 October 2018 (EDT)

I imagine somewhere between 8 and 16 total hours spent searching over the course of the week(give or take a day). I am aware the RNG may have not favored me(that would be some pretty bad luck), or something else may have prevented me from finding any, but the reverse could be true for the other person as well. We can never know, sadly.

--LordMark 23:02, 15 October 2018 (EDT)

Roger. Now there is at least some objective data to potentially compare other new minimal perexp changes against in the future. Especially for perexp for legacy related forageable items that go below there old legacy perexp value. (except in the case of true foul-play of course, in which case all bets are off)

... A quick perexp Haven versus Legacy forageable compare flushed out an other potential bad edit. (fixed)

--.MvGulik. 02:38, 16 October 2018 (EDT)