Talk:Lounge lizardfish

You can pickpocket this mob - I got a slug of shochu from him.--Denarius 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that this fish has some physical damage reduction? As a lvl 32 AT with a bottle rocket crossbow, I was doing 15-19 damage to the lounge lizardfish, while I was doing 176-180 to the Mer-kin and 120-130 to the nurse shark. --Tz BG 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say at least a high defense. 569 Muscle, Haiku Katana, and I trigger a measly 51 damage when using the Summer Siesta skill. My only other damage source is items and skills, which don't do much for Disco Bandits. Qaianna 08:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I don't recall my level 36+ characters having noticed such a drastic difference. Perhaps it is a very high defense value. Worth looking into. --Flargen 08:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

High defense confirmed to be the cause. It has a base defense of 700. The value for actually hitting it is 90% of that, or 630. But you add ML to the base of 700, then take the 90% of that, to get the adjusted base defense. And that base defense has the usual monster level variance factor of plus or minor 5. Compare this to the next toughest to hit monster here, the shark, with a base defense of 450 (hit at 405). This is one moxious fish! --Flargen 10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

Collected drop rate statistics. As usual, "wh: X" means the character was using a hound dog familiar at the indicated weight while under the Wallaby sign. The effects of this were and are accounted for. --Flargen 19:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Item Bonus	Encountered	pairs of amber aviator shades	wads of hair of the fish	rough fish scales	slugs of shochu
+138.7494% (wh: 36)	316	42	41	32	148
+137.7494% (wh: 36)	251	35	39	24	130
+147.9155%	82	9	12	6	40
+142.9155%	248	34	70	29	132
+98%	44	4	6	4	16
+376.4801%	93	18	22	16	90
+301.1555%	106	21	30	18	78
+396.4801%	100	23	31	20	100
+390.4981%	101	25	28	20	99
+431.4801	154	47	33	24	154
+365.4981%	40	10	6	6	34
observed rates (error)		.0517 (.002842)	.0529 (.003029)	.0379 (.002517)	.2003 (.002085)

• Added more data. I've removed the +142.9155% data from the calculation on the hair, since it was a measurement of over 11%, which is twice what everything else gave. I might have listed that data incorrectly, or gotten very unusual luck. --Flargen (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)