Loot Table Problems

[trevius]

Here is the code that KLS was mentioning where the loot is actually being picked to be added.

void ZoneDatabase::AddLootDropToNPC(NPC* npc,int32 lootdrop_id, ItemList* itemlist) {
	const LootDrop_Struct* lds = GetLootDrop(lootdrop_id);
	if (!lds) {
	 //   LogFile->write(EQEMuLog::Error, "Database Or Memory error GetLootDrop(%i) == 0, npc:%s", lootdrop_id, npc->GetName());
		return;
	}
	if(lds->NumEntries == 0)	//nothing possible to add
		return;

//Removed code for pool looting which isn't applicable to this example

#else
	//non-pool based looting

	int32 r;
	int32 totalchance = 0;
	for (r = 0; r < lds->NumEntries; r++) {
		totalchance += lds->Entries[r].chance;
	}
	uint32 thischance = 0;
	unsigned short k;
	bool found = false;
	
	while(!found) {
		k = MakeRandomInt(0, lds->NumEntries-1);
		
		thischance = lds->Entries[k].chance;
		unsigned int drop_chance = rand() % totalchance;
#if EQDEBUG>=11
			LogFile->write(EQEMuLog::Debug, "Drop chance for npc: %s, total chance:%i this chance:%i, drop roll:%i", npc->GetName(), totalchance, thischance, drop_chance);
#endif
		if (   totalchance == 0 
			|| thischance == 100
			|| thischance == totalchance // only droppable item in loot table
			|| drop_chance < thischance	//can never be true if thischance is 0
			) {
			found = true;
			int32 itemid = lds->Entries[k].item_id;
			
			const Item_Struct* dbitem = GetItem(itemid);
			npc->AddLootDrop(dbitem, itemlist, lds->Entries[k].item_charges, lds->Entries[k].equip_item, false);
			
			break;
			//continue;
		}	//end if it will drop
	}	//end loop
#endif

I am going to read this one over a few more times and see if I can figure out a better explanation of what I think is going wrong and hopefully a fix for it. I don't mean to stir up issues about this, but I do think something seems to be off. I am almost postitive that certain things will have a much higher drop rate even if all items in the table are equal. The way that I stated that KLS cleared up is how I currently am thinking it works. But I will read it over again to make sure. This was my guess as to how it worked even before checking the actual code, but looking at what I have posted here I think that might be correct.