Talk:Desert Fossil

Note relating Spelunker Potion
As there seems to be a discussion in the edit summeries, if the spelunker potion should be mentioned on the page or not here first the note: And than the summery of the edits:
 * The Spelunker Potion will not reveal Desert Fossils.
 * 21:03, 11 December 2016‎ User:TOTORO01 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (1,212 bytes) (-58)‎ . . (Spelunker potion doesn't even apply to any type of block.)
 * 21:08, 11 December 2016‎ User:Equazcion (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (1,271 bytes) (+59)‎ . . (Undo revision 657623 by TOTORO01 (talk) -- it detects ore and gem blocks, reasonable that people might think it detects fossil blocks)
 * 21:15, 11 December 2016‎ TOTORO01 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (1,212 bytes) (-59)‎ . . (Undo revision 657626 by Equazcion (talk) It says "type-block")

And now my comment: I agree with Equazcion as Ores can also be blocks (when placed) and only when they are blocks they are detected by the spleunker potion. And kind of related, you could consider Dessert Fossil an Ore, we do not do this on this wiki, but if you are not as familiar with the wiki they are quite similar. As such I vote we keep the note. Flisch42 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this to a discussion (I was too lazy). I agree, and I'd also include a similar note at Silt and Slush. Since these can be valuable for their use in Extractinators, people trying to collect any of these might assume or at least wonder whether Spelunker highlights them, the way it highlights other valuable collectibles (including some blocks). Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:47, 11 Dec 2016 (UTC)


 * Ores are detectable in natural environments too. But if it confuses people then yeah, go for the note. Sorry about the hassle.TOTORO01 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Which value is correct for the amber mosquito?
In the chart, it's showing that there's a 0.027% chance to get the amber mosquito using desert fossils, but just above the chart it says there is a 1/1666 (0.06%) chance to get it from desert fossils. Does anyone know which value is correct, or whether the values are supposed to be labeled for a specific platform (since that's the only reason 2 different chances should be listed for it). Stranded at sea (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The 0.027% chance is correct. The other sentence was added in 2016 and hasn't been changed since, apparently. I don't know how the 1/1666 was determined, though; the chance was 27/100000 back then in 1.3.1.1 as it is now. I removed the erroneous sentence, thanks for noting. --Rye Greenwood (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I do actually understand where the 1/1666 chance comes from. It's a misinterpretation of the source code. --Rye Greenwood (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)