# Percentage tables on Whelpling pages

## Forum page

*102,734*pages on

this wiki

**Forums:**Index

**⇒**WoWWiki general

**→**Percentage tables on Whelpling pages

(

*)*

**This is a dead topic, Please do not edit this page!**I am speaking of the tables towards the end of the following pages: Dragon whelp, Tiny Crimson Whelpling, Tiny Emerald Whelpling, Dark Whelpling, and Azure Whelpling. These tables give the false impression that the more you kill these specific enemies, the higher the chance is to receive one of the whelplings as loot, which is simply not true. I removed these once, a while ago, as they were misleading to the average viewer, but they have returned.

--purple">OLIOSTER ^{(talk)} 22:53, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

- The idea those tables aim to communicate is the right one: the more of those mobs you kill, the more likely you are to loot at least one whelping during the process. Removing the tables is not a solution; find a way to present them in a way that does not seem misleading to you. -- foxlit (talk) 23:01, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

- The table insinuates that the chance for a whelp to drop increases with every kill, which is completely false and is not how random chance operates. Please refer to Gambler's fallacy. purple">OLIOSTER
^{(talk)}23:15, December 17, 2009 (UTC)- See Template:1-1000drop for an explanation. --Pcj (T •C ) 01:43, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
- The odds don't add up though! That is not how it works. The odds are always 0.1%. purple">OLIOSTER
^{(talk)}02:39, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

- The odds don't add up though! That is not how it works. The odds are always 0.1%. purple">OLIOSTER

- See Template:1-1000drop for an explanation. --Pcj (T •C ) 01:43, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

- The table insinuates that the chance for a whelp to drop increases with every kill, which is completely false and is not how random chance operates. Please refer to Gambler's fallacy. purple">OLIOSTER

- I agree, it is misleading. If you roll a d20 100 times, the next roll, the chance you roll a 20 is still 5%.
**Posted by**: EGingell (T|C|F) on 03:01, December 18, 2009 (UTC)- But the chance you will have rolled a 20 increases with every roll. The results are cumulative. --Pcj (T •C ) 03:08, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

- I agree, it is misleading. If you roll a d20 100 times, the next roll, the chance you roll a 20 is still 5%.

- You're simply misreading it (and the lack of explanatory text in the table makes that easy to do). "Odds" is intended to be read as "Probability of getting at least one in N kills", while you're reading it as is "drop rate on next kill after N kills". If you'd like to change it, find a way to communicate the same information that does not seem misleading to you. -- foxlit (talk) 12:27, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
- But the probability of something happening doesn't go up regardless of how many times you try. Its always 0.1%! purple">OLIOSTER
^{(talk)}19:49, December 18, 2009 (UTC)- I agree with Olioster. The chart is misleading at best, and completely unnecessary at worst. The same bit of information can be portrayed by adding a sentence saying something along the lines of "As the chance to see this item drop from any one mob is about 0.1%, it would take, on average, about 3000 or so kills to see one drop." This best represents the idea behind drop rates without going into simple falsehoods.
- This is exactly what I'm trying to get across. The table insinuates that 3000 kills will almost guarantee a drop, which it absolutely will not. purple">OLIOSTER
^{(talk)}20:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC)- That insinuation is
*absolutely correct*: you*do*have a large probability of getting at least one whelpling to drop in 3000 kills. Not*on*the 3000th kill (which still has the constant 0.1% drop probability), but*while*getting 3000 kills (i.e. a cumulative probability). The average number of kills to see at least one drop is simply 1/p = 1000 (an incredibly boring, but nevertheless correct observation). Essentially, the question worth answering is: "If I were to set out right now and kill X whelps, what is the probability I'd get a whelpling during that process?" - If you flip a fair coin once, the probability of getting heads is 50%. If you flip a fair coin 3000 times, the probability that you see at least one head during the 3000 flips is
*significantly larger*than 50%. That cumulative probability is worth communicating. [The coin still has a 50% probability of showing heads on the 3000th throw, which is the point I think you're trying to make, but that observation is boring.] -- foxlit (talk) 11:54, December 19, 2009 (UTC)- You know what, forget it. You're obviously not understanding why I have a problem with these tables. I'll go somewhere else for reliable WoW information from now on. purple">OLIOSTER
^{(talk)}08:42, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

- You know what, forget it. You're obviously not understanding why I have a problem with these tables. I'll go somewhere else for reliable WoW information from now on. purple">OLIOSTER

- That insinuation is

- This is exactly what I'm trying to get across. The table insinuates that 3000 kills will almost guarantee a drop, which it absolutely will not. purple">OLIOSTER

- I agree with Olioster. The chart is misleading at best, and completely unnecessary at worst. The same bit of information can be portrayed by adding a sentence saying something along the lines of "As the chance to see this item drop from any one mob is about 0.1%, it would take, on average, about 3000 or so kills to see one drop." This best represents the idea behind drop rates without going into simple falsehoods.

- But the probability of something happening doesn't go up regardless of how many times you try. Its always 0.1%! purple">OLIOSTER

- You're simply misreading it (and the lack of explanatory text in the table makes that easy to do). "Odds" is intended to be read as "Probability of getting at least one in N kills", while you're reading it as is "drop rate on next kill after N kills". If you'd like to change it, find a way to communicate the same information that does not seem misleading to you. -- foxlit (talk) 12:27, December 18, 2009 (UTC)