Experiment 44 Chance of receiving quest items

tags: [god] [quests and drop]


'it is not quite what we requested of you,' said an important-looking kamael, that was running through a long piece of paper with his eyes, in a thoughtful, deep voice.

'it's not? what do you mean it's not what you requested? 'course, it is,' replied tully, snatching the paper from the kamael's hands and looking through it himself.

'i am afraid i have to insist it is not. you apply the necessary materials, indeed, but the purpose of the test that we had required was different from the one you have on the paper,' said the kamael, looking directly at tully, unblinkingly.

'but... how can it be wrong? i've got your order here, look,' said tully in disbelief, as he went over to his desk and shuffled through the papers he had. finally, he fished out the one he was looking for.

'there ye go: 1st april, mr. reek...'

'it's mr. creek, actually.'

'that's what i say, mr...' tully paused.

the kamael, that was watching tully intensely and seriously, suddenly had a flicker of a smile on his aristocratic face.

'reek. creek,' mumbled tully to himself when it started to dawn on him what had happened.

he remembered both names clearly, but since they sounded somewhat similar he must have confused their tests!

tully looked up at the kamael with a troubled expression on his face.

the kamael's half-smile, to tully's surprise, turned into a mild chuckle.

'i hope i can expect results for my test by the end of the week?' asked mr. creek, still smiling broadly, with a twinkle in his dark eyes.

'...yes. i mean, yes, 'course. will do it in the best way i can. you don't need to worry about that, sir,' tully gained back self-control and then added hastily,'this time.'

the kamael nodded respectfully and turned to leave, his half-smile still lingering on his lips.

​

purpose: in this test we will find out whether the chance of getting quest items from a particular monster is influenced by another quest undertaken by the same character that requires killing the same mobs.

test conditions: we created a level 64 character that undertook both a game of cards and quest for fishing shot quests. then we killed 1,000 splinter stakatos with the character having both quests undertaken and 1,000 for each quest separately.

after killing each 100 mobs we recorded the number of red gem and sweet fluid quest items obtained.

test 1: in the first test we killied 1,000 splinter stakatos with the character having both quests on his quest list. we have put the results of this test in the table below, marked with the number 2 (stands for the number of quests undertaken simultaneously).

test 2: in the second test we killed 1,000 splinter stakatos while the character only one quest undertaken: a game of cards, for which we obtained red gems.

test 3: finally, we killed 1,000 splinter stakatos only getting sweet fluid for the quest for fishing shot.

results:

{tr}{tr}{tr}{tr}{tr}{/tr}{/tr}{/tr}{/tr}{/tr}

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

red gem 2

30

52

72

97

121

147

175

206

232

248

sweet fluid 2

60

95

151

211

255

304

354

402

457

514

red gem

44

96

146

199

253

303

356

404

445

497

sweet fluid

101

203

303

404

507

607

707

810

911

1011

here are the results in a graph:

​

conclusion: the results of the test make it clear that the chances of getting quest items go down if you do two quests requiring you to get the same items from the same monsters simultaneously.

 

and what about the chances if you do quest for items and you are in pt with someone else who taken the same quest? (daily quest on bloody swampland items a lot harder to get if u do it in team)

 

we are not taking any new requests at this time as per the update in the requests thread:

https://4gameforum.com/showthread.php?t=12886&p=98590&viewfull=1#post98590

in future when the requests are opened again please make sure to submit your new/additional requests to that thread and not attached to these experiments as they will be overlooked.

regards.

 

well, nop anyway, just refered my old request (posted 04.11.2012, 09:27). i thought it was a derivation of that and only missed some information. so it was not a new request, but an old one. ,)