Talk:Rabbit Frost

Apparently Min Per*Exp ≤ 1300. Spotted with 21 Exp and 62 Prc --Tmp0340

Min perexp < 1200. Detected with 23 Exp and 51 Prc (that one was still invisible for 21 Exp and 52 Prc) --Tmp0340 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Min perexp ≤ 1050. Detected with 21 Exp and 50 Prc (sadly were unable to check with lower stats ATM) --Tmp0340 (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Note that "still invisible" don't necessarily means Exp*Prc is actually below the items base level (its a hint it might be), as seeing it is a random thing. What matters in such a case is how it was tested to give the case some statistical significance. --.MvGulik. 17:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

>"how it was tested." Two cases were tested by reloading game map with the same herbs by the use of an indoor location:

1. Herb is spotted

2. Player enters housing while herb is still within the sight radius

3. Player changes gear to modify stats

4. Player exits/peeks through door to check the herb's visibility.

Results were conclusive in both cases, herb visibility was determined by gear/bonuses/result stats.

Is there anything I missed?

--Tmp0340 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

>"Is there anything I missed?"

Hmm. not sure due to limited herb visibility testing myself -- See below why.

Technical pondering ... If this method, when repeating it multiple time in a row (per character case), gives the same outcome for all tries. The map reloading part might not reset the herb invisible (on herb and/or character). When repeating will give different results the reloading part works. At that point it becomes a statistical counting game: How many tries(herb not showing) did it take for a herb to show up (shown == Proof Exp*Prc >= herb base level). The closer one gets to the herb base level the more tries it will take (mind you its still random). (infinite tries of course if Exp*Prc drops below the herb's base level. Which is why actually proving the actual base level is a bit of an headache)

Practically, I would round Exp*Prc a bit down (2 or 3 significant digits) after settling on a potential near base level value. --.MvGulik. 19:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

>"round Exp*Prc a bit down" Since the wiki should provide reliable information, rounding such requirements up (to "nice" numbers) might help avoid errors --Tmp0340 (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair point. Although in that case it makes sense to do no rounding, and use the actual lowest known Exp*Prc value that still works (ie: preservation of known valid data => (kinda making the round down suggestion a bad one. oops ;-/ ).) --.MvGulik. 18:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)