Best MF % for uniques

[omgmir]

Best MF % for uniques

I always played under the assumption "enough MF as you can hold without sacrificing killing speed" was the way to go. But now I keep hearing crap about "higher MF increases you chances of finding rares over uniques". Now technically if you know the way items drop, this shouldn't be true cause unique is always checked first. But I have noticed the more MF i've added to my sorc the more rares I get from meph/andy and less uniques.

Now this could either be pure blind luck or these people are actually on to something.. could someone please explain this too me, someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Another thread with 20 people debating how MF works when most of them don't know jack**** doesn't help me any.

I know how MF diminishing returns works, but that doesn't mean having 600% MF is a bad thing. It would be a bad thing if say past 300% my chance of finding rares over uniques increased..

 

[thegiantturtle]

Your first assumption was correct.

It is true that the more mf you have, the more rares you will get compared to uniques (do to the different diminishing returns formulae), but you'll still be getting more uniques. Technically "higher MF increases you chances of finding rares over uniques" can be considered true, but it's not a bad thing.

Example:

Unique MF % = MF*250/(MF + 250)
Rare MF % = MF*600/(MF + 600)

Suppose that a certain item drops from a certain enemy with a 10% chance of being unique and 20% chance of being rare. Suppose you kill that monster 100 times.

With 000 mf: 10 uniques, 20 rares, ratio (rare:unique): 2:1
With 100 mf: 17 uniques, 37 rares, ratio (rare:unique): 2.17:1
with 200 mf: 21 uniques, 51 rares, ratio (rare:unique): 2.43:1
with 500 mf: 27 uniques, 82 rares, ratio (rare:unique): 3.04:1

 

[omgmir]

Your first assumption was correct.

It is true that the more mf you have, the more rares you will get compared to uniques (do to the different diminishing returns formulae), but you'll still be getting more uniques. Technically "higher MF increases you chances of finding rares over uniques" can be considered true, but it's not a bad thing.

Example:

Unique MF % = MF*250/(MF + 250)
Rare MF % = MF*600/(MF + 600)

Suppose that a certain item drops from a certain enemy with a 10% chance of being unique and 20% chance of being rare. Suppose you kill that monster 100 times.

With 000 mf: 10 uniques, 20 rares, ratio (rare:unique): 2:1
With 100 mf: 17 uniques, 37 rares, ratio (rare:unique): 2.17:1
with 200 mf: 21 uniques, 51 rares, ratio (rare:unique): 2.43:1
with 500 mf: 27 uniques, 82 rares, ratio (rare:unique): 3.04:1

Thank you, exactly what I was looking for.

So yes the rare:unique ratio favors rares the higher you go but you're still finding more uniques so.. i'd say it's worth it.

 

[thegiantturtle]

Thank you, exactly what I was looking for.

So yes the rare:unique ratio favors rares the higher you go but you're still finding more uniques so.. i'd say it's worth it.

The only drawback of increased MF% is a decrease in socketables. And the decrease can be quite large. Where as Unique, Sets, and Rares are subject to diminishing returns, magic items are not. While going from 500% MF to 600% MF, there's only a 10% increase in chance of a unique (yields about 3% more uniques), there's a 22% better chance of sets (about 6% more sets), 28% better chance of rares (about 7.5% more rares), and 100% better chance of magics (about 16% more magics).

 

[Myrakh-2]

It doesn't matter how many more rares you find, since uniques are rolled first.

Right now I don't know whether sets (c=500) or rares (c=600) are rolled next, but if we assume that "worse diminishing returns" means "rolled first" then sets would be rolled second in the chain.

 

[TheJarulf]

It doesn't matter how many more rares you find, since uniques are rolled first.

Right now I don't know whether sets (c=500) or rares (c=600) are rolled next, but if we assume that "worse diminishing returns" means "rolled first" then sets would be rolled second in the chain.

Starting with version 1.04 (I think), sets are rolled for after unique and before rare. Before that, rares was rolled for before sets.

 

[omgmir]

Jarulf posted in my thread?

I'm not worthy. :uhhuh:

 

[Thrugg]

A tiny technical observation amongst all very good responses:
An item can only be rare after it fails to be unique (and set) and so the actual rate of rares gets a couple of (1-x) factors in front of it with x being the rate of uniques/sets. So it does not grow relative to the unique rate quite as fast as TGT listed. However, it does still outpace it on all creatures (even the extreme case of bugged Andy who has the single best odds for unique quality of any non-special monster).

 

[thegiantturtle]

A tiny technical observation amongst all very good responses:
An item can only be rare after it fails to be unique (and set) and so the actual rate of rares gets a couple of (1-x) factors in front of it with x being the rate of uniques/sets. So it does not grow relative to the unique rate quite as fast as TGT listed. However, it does still outpace it on all creatures (even the extreme case of bugged Andy who has the single best odds for unique quality of any non-special monster).

The actual rate of rares to uniques in the game also would have a couple other factors thrown in. Since I took a specific monster dropping a specific item, I avoided looking at failed unique rares (base items that don't have a rare available ever, or for the specific mlvl) and varying unique chances based on qlvl/mlvl. There's probably other factors I'm forgetting too. I believe the missing factors would raise the ratios above what Thruggs factors dropped it to, but still keep it well below my original given ratios.

 

[doompie]

The actual rate of rares to uniques in the game also would have a couple other factors thrown in. Since I took a specific monster dropping a specific item, I avoided looking at failed unique rares (base items that don't have a rare available ever, or for the specific mlvl) and varying unique chances based on qlvl/mlvl. There's probably other factors I'm forgetting too. I believe the missing factors would raise the ratios above what Thruggs factors dropped it to, but still keep it well below my original given ratios.

Dont forget that if a monster rolls a unique or set item, but its mlvl isnt high enough to drop that item, what is dropped is either a 3x durablity rare (in place of the unique) or a 2x durability rare (in place of the set).

 

[TheJarulf]

Dont forget that if a monster rolls a unique or set item, but its mlvl isnt high enough to drop that item, what is dropped is either a 3x durablity rare (in place of the unique) or a 2x durability rare (in place of the set).

Unless they changed it in 1.11, falied sets downgrade to magic items. And isn't the durability modifiers 5x and 3x? or am I just to old to remember correctly? By the way, as ain interesting trivia, the extra durability of failed uniques and sets were originally a bug. When failing, the game will reset the item properties, but they missed the nicreased durability. When they rewrote the item creation, not sure if it was for the exapsion or a later patch, they kept the bug as an intended feature instead. Appearantly someone sugested that it would be a nice bonus in the cases were you failed for a better quality

 

[jiansonz]

How does the extra durability work with throwing weapons? Failed set/uniques with these must happen often, since there are so few uniques (and no set items). Will the stack be bigger or will each individual weapon have extra durability?

 

[TheJarulf]

How does the extra durability work with throwing weapons? Failed set/uniques with these must happen often, since there are so few uniques (and no set items). Will the stack be bigger or will each individual weapon have extra durability?

It is the durability attribute that is increased. So no, the stack won't get bigger. Not sure the durability of those items really have any meaning in game terms, it should still be there though. I believe that initially, there were no unique or set throwing weapons, so it was not an issue at that time either.

 

[RTB]

Unless they changed it in 1.11, falied sets downgrade to magic items. And isn't the durability modifiers 5x and 3x? or am I just to old to remember correctly?

I suppose they changed it to 3x and 2x from the release of the Expansion. I agree that it's a nice feature. Lets you know how much the game hates you (failed set Archon Staff, failed unique Archon Plate... :grrr: )

Durability for throwing weapons works just like normal melee weapons, but when it reaches 0, it's reset to maximum and one is deducted from the stack. Effectively, throwing weapons have tons of durability, even when ethereal. Initially throwing weapons could only spawn as normal (and superior/low quality).

doompie: Failed set means a 2x durability magical item.

 

[jiansonz]

Effectively, throwing weapons have tons of durability, even when ethereal.

Yes, that was very apparent in the "All Alone" Tournament (where town visits were forbidden). My Frost Zealot went through weapons quickly, but a pack of nice rare Balanced Axes lasted almost half an act!