Talk:Rareness

About the article

Sounds very good, maybe 5% must mean that if you kill 100 monsters you get the loot in about 5 of the 100 monsters.

 Wie niet slim is moet slim zijn
^^  º Bennie º  ¤ Talk ¤  ^^ 09:10, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

I'd say semi-rare is less than 100/10000, rare less than 10/10000 and very rare less than 1/10000. If you get something for every 20 monsters, it is definetly not rare. --Ville-v 09:21, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

---

It's relative, let's say, If you loot 10 cheeses every 100 rats (just an example) you could not consider it rare because it's so easy to kill a rat, but saying you get 10 "item" from every 100 Apocalypses, it could be considered at least semi rare, because killing 100 of those is much harder . . .

-- † Pudd Knight †  Talk  Contribs  -- 10:04, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

---

Yea but it shouldn't be relative. If there would be standards, it would be easier for people to determine if it's worth it to hunt some creature. About very rare being 1/10000, that's waay too much. I mean, a Vampire Shield is defenitely considered very rare, and it loots about 1/200-300. I would say: semi rare = 1/10 - 1/50 rare 1/50 - 1/200 very rare 1/200 and more

---

pud i disagree, no matter what the items is or what monster is dropping it "rare" should be based only on how common the drop is, with no consideration to value of the item or difficulty of the monster. Value and difficulty are relitive but rare is universal.
¿ DisÅstér Móntêiro ¤  Tãlk ¤ ¿
20:18, 14 July 2007 (PDT)

---

I agree with disaster, but I think it should be based slightly on how long it takes to get (and partially is) which is good, for example, rares from mobs that hunt slow cause bad spawns it takes longer to get item even if it has better chance of dropping, and I think people already calculate that in in a way. But I also think theres some grey areas here and possibly more categorization needed. I've actually used "uncommon" on a drop, it was of course altered to semi-rare, but its not even close to semi rare, its not common, but it certianlly is not semi-rare. This would be the viper stars on assasin, cause when compared to the throwing stars which are 0-14, and 0-7 viper stars you get on average way more than just double the amount of throwing stars, but viper stars certianlly are not semi-rare. Thats just my thoughts. --Rathgard 20:55, 14 July 2007 (PDT)

---

Wow, I was long winded there, but how about uncommon 6-15% --Rathgard 22:19, 15 July 2007 (PDT)

---

How rare an item drop should not depend on what level you are. It only should matter how offen the item is droped from a creature. Some player might hunt one creature at level 10 while another might hunt the creature at level 80. The drop item may not be rare the the 80 level player, because he can kill many. --  Slug the third   Talk  Contriutions   00:12, 16 July 2007 (PDT)

---

I agree with Disaster, but the articles should be changed if it's like this. Edwin de waterman  => Talk <=  Profile ·_· Contribs <·> 00:21, 16 July 2007 (PDT) <·>

---

This just an idea to me of monster loot rarity:

Common: 100% to 81% of the time.

Uncommon: 80% to 40% of the time.

Semi Rare: 39% to 25% of the time.

Rare: 24% to 10% of the time.

Very Rare: 9% to 1% of the time.

Mind you this is just my view on rarity. I also added uncommom to the list as well, for things like the odds of an Orc Spearmen droping a spear.

The Wolf Paladin

---

I think the article is good the way it is now; rarity is ONLY based on the chance of looting it, not how rare/hard the creature that drops it is (see Pudd's post)

The percentages that have been put here are good, I think.

Snowfire

---

well i can't loot things that are "rare" in 100 monsters... so its less then 1% for me... then again i loot daraminian waraxes all the time and they are "very rare"

magician jimson

---

suggested formula: not rare: 100% - 10% semi rare: 10% - 5% rare: 5% - 1% very rare >1%

very close to the original, but its just a suggestion...

~Elgarel Kator jan 27 2008

nonsense

Unless every monster has a page like Swamp Troll/loot statistics this is all nonsense. Why? Because without a page like Swamp Troll/loot statistics there is no proof of how rare an item can be, even without the rarity percentages set. This means that it's better to write down the % chance of looting the item than to write down (after ages of discussing) "rare" or "semi-rare" etc.. because to calculate the percentage you need to kill at least 100 of the same monster, which means you can't say Ghazbaran's something loot is rare or very rare. Because one simply can't kill 100 Ghazbarans in a row on his/her own. Understand my point of view on this? --Edwin de waterman 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)