I now have actual proof that the Dragon Quest Wiki is full of lies!
First, some set-up. If I were a normal person, I'd just open up with the proof I'm talking about, but I feel it's important to put into context why I find this to be such a big deal.
I've been playing a lot of Dragon Quest / Dragon Warrior lately (And I mean a lot). It's basically consumed my entire life. And, lacking physical manuals, I had to look up digital versions. When the manual lacked the information I needed, or worse, wasn't available, I had to go to the wiki.
Now, the first time I went to the Wiki, I was playing Dragon Quest IX, and I was given a Side Quest in which someone had requested I deliver a Wing Of Bat. I was fighting Drackmages for actual hours. The entire party had leveled up multiple times, and not a single Wing Of Bat had dropped. So I went to the wiki, because I needed Item Drop Rates. At the time of writing, according to the wiki Drackmages have a 1/16 chance of dropping a Wing Of Bat.
That's really funny. Not the drop rate, the fact that they expect me to believe that.
And this sort of thing just kept on happening. "There's no way such-and-such enemy's critical hit rate is this low" "There's no way that's such-and-such ability's damage range" "The rate such-and-such attack causes a status ailment is obviously higher than that" and so on and so forth.
But that's not good enough.
Saying "I was unlucky, therefor these odds must be wrong" is not good enough. I can scream into the void all I want, but as long as the chance of a Drackmage dropping a Wing Of Bat is lower than 100%, then there's a higher than 0% chance that I was simply that unlucky.
And a combination of Dokapon's obviously cheating CPUs and their obviously loaded dice, Pokemon Gen 5 absolutely screwing me with critical hits, and never winning a real life luck-based event of any kind in my entire life, I sort of convinced myself that that really was the case.
Then, without thinking about what doing this would lead to, on my most recent playthrough of Dragon Warrior III, I put my Vatality into a calculator.
At the time of writing, according to the Dragon Quest Wiki, your max HP is anywhere between 195% - 205% of your Vitality.
When I decided to do this, I had a Vitality of 186, and a Max HP of 354.
The problem with that, of course, is that if we follow the wiki's math, then the absolute minimum HP I should have there, is 362.
That is not 195-205% of my Vitality. In fact, it's closer to 190%. That's not just statistically impossible. According to the wiki, it's just plain impossible.
Out of curiosity, I opened up one of my complete files on Dragon Warrior III GBC to see how the numbers feared there, and unlike the NES version, the HP amounts seemed to be within the threshold the Wiki mentioned, save for the sage, but as the only character who changed Class, I'll chalk that up to "Class Change Weirdness" even though he was level 33 and his stats definitely should have re-balanced by then.
Remember that the wiki claims that All Versions of DQ/DW 3 use the same formula for Max HP, but with this single screenshot, that is provably false. The NES Version clearly does not use the same formula.
This is incredibly vindicating. As I played through the games and had to frequent the Wiki I often found myself saying that aspects of the wiki were false. An example:
According to the Wiki, Orochi has a 33% chance to act twice in one turn. From my experience, on the NES version, she always acted twice in one turn.
Now, this is, once again, a statistic, and it is very well statistically possible that I just got absurdly unlucky, but with the proof that I have that the Wiki got the numbers wrong when it comes to the formula for Max HP, can we at least agree, that even though I don't have any proof that this statistic specifically is wrong, that I at least have the right to be skeptical about it?
Either I'm The Most Unlucky Person In Existence and throughout 4 battles spanning many turns, she never failed the dice roll and it was a coincidence that she always acted twice
Or, maybe, just maybe... The Wiki is wrong.
13 notes
·
View notes