As this is debating the value of runes it does have some connection, if tenuous, to the main topic. I hope.

No, multiplying by four is not a clear solution.

Rune drop rates when a monster drops from Runes 17 (Zod).

Code:

```
Rune 1.13b Chance (1 in X) 1.10 Chance (1 in X)
Jah 1320.9 15758.2
Ber 1475.8 13510.7
Sur 983.9 9007.1
Lo 1091.4 7723.0
Ohm 727.6 5148.6
Vex 766.5 4415.6
Gul 511.0 2943.7
```

Lo runes are slightly more than 7 times more common in 1.13c (equal to 1.13b). Gul runes drop close to 6 times more often.

This does not reflect the true change in values.

1.12a Gul runes were severely depreciated by hell forge rushing such that hell forge rushing a Ber was better than running for one. A Ber is 32 Gul runes and dividing 13500 by 32 gives 421, showing that the value of a Gul in 1.12a was at best that as if it dropped as one in 421 runes, but likely much lower. That is even lower than the current rate in 1.13c.

The dramatic drop in rarities of the high runes in 1.13c and corruption of the rarity curve has made hell forge rushing completely uneconomical. The value of a 1.13c Gul is now mostly determined by the value of a Lo as a Gul has little inherent usefulness. A Lo rune has a rarity of 1091, and as it is 8 Gul runes a Gul has a practical rarity of 136. This is a third of the maximum value for that of a 1.12a Gul.

While the real value of a 1.12a Gul is not precisely known, its maximum possible value shows that the transfer from 1.12a to 1.13c is absolutely less than three times.

The value shift for Ist runes is even more complicated as Ist runes have fairly significant inherent usefulness.

I am still neither supporting nor denying that a 1.09 Raven Claw is fairly valued at a 1.13c Gul.