FANDOM


(Uncommon: Why it should be added: new section)
Line 181: Line 181:
 
=) Yours truly,<br>
 
=) Yours truly,<br>
 
[[User:MrVerry|MrVerry]] 15:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 
[[User:MrVerry|MrVerry]] 15:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
  +
  +
----
  +
Signed! :)
  +
<br>[[Image:Ghazbaran.gif]]&nbsp;<small><span style="small-caps;border: 2px solid green">[[User:Rafailo|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:black" title="My Profile">&nbsp;Rafailo Sagara&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Rafailo|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;background-color:green; color:white" title="My Talk">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Rafailo|'''<span style="small-caps; border: 0px solid #186fc8; background-color:White; color:black" title="My Contributions">&nbsp;Contriutions&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>&nbsp;[[Image:Morgaroth.gif]] 18:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:29, August 17, 2010

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) <·>


Winter Wolf

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.

Bow The Wolf Paladin Wolf Tooth Chain


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


I've been trying to put together some statistics for a few monsters. The one I've killed most of is dragon lords. I'm not done with it yet (only done ~600 so far and I have ~400 more to kill ;) but I can see tendencies already. With the current formula things like energy ring would be semi-rare, and almost everything that's now considered rare would be very rare. My suggested formula is this:

not rare: 100% - 5% (at least 1 in every 20 kills)
semi rare: 5%-2% (1 in every 20-50 kills)
rare: 2%-0,2% (1 in every 50-500 kills)
very rare: 0,2%- (less than 1 in every 500 kills)
Nevaran 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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)


Actually, killing 100 isn't enough. To get as close as possible to the correct percentage you need to kill at least 1000 monsters. 100 might get you close when it comes to trolls or swamp trolls because they don't have a wide selection of loot, but if you compare 100 swamp trolls to the percentage of 1000 killed you'll see it gets more accurate. So good luck to whoever wants to kill 1000 Ghazbaran to see the percentage of that loot ;)
Nevaran 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Create a policy on tagging

With creating this page, my goal wasn't to set perfect % of every item looted in any creature (otherwise I would've proposed setting the chance for every item to be looted (for example, fish 62% in swamp trolls). I only want to determine what exactly is semi-rare, rare, or very rare. If we determine good values, people can adjust articles to this. Ofcourse we can't be 100% accurate, but at least people will know fairly accurately how often they can expect a certain item in a certain creature. Daken Thundermaster 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nevaran, the rareness should be like the ones that he wrote Wurze 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Rare: Why not uncommon?

I think this system is a bit confuse...

I think that semi word should mean the mid rarity between rare and very rare. Why? Just a simple height question. The word rare is small, so people would mean the rarity is uncommon. Very-rare means that the item is so hard to obtain. Semi-rare means the middle rarity between both rarity because semi- means middle. I suggest to change the word semi-rare to uncommon because some roleplaying game cards use semi-rare to middle rarity between rare and very-rare.

Manjyome Black - April 13th, 00:32 GMT-3


Actually, semi means half, to some extent, partly. So a semi-rare item is only half as rare, or partly rare, or to some extent rare. Just because other games use the word the wrong way doesn't mean we should too.
Nevaran 10:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on rareness

I think semi rare is like 1-10 - 1-20 take halberds for example. berserkers drop them and bloodwalkers like more to 1-10 then 1-20.but you could always have bad luck and kill 10 one day,get nothing ,then kill 20 next day and get 3. but wiki says norse shield from frost giantess is semi rare, i killed like a 100 and only got 2, so what that a mistake on frost gaintess page or is semi rare up to 1-50?

Bryan71121 07:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

same content in other page

I would like to have been warned this page exist when i started tlak about this in this page. But concerning loot statistics, i think the best way to have a standard that can be used in all monsters would be hunt 5000 Demons, the monster with the rarest item the MPA and then based on the statistics to that monster define the criteria for semi-rare, rare and very rare. Maguu 00:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Percentage

I think Serpent Spawns have the most compelte loot statistics since up 8.5, looking at that page, the stats used were: 2% - common
2%>1% - semi-rare (or at least shoudl be it)
1%>0,2% - rare
0,2%> - very rare
The main page of the monster has od stats for rarity, since the loot statistics are only getting more accurate now. Maguu 04:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


I also think that we should look at least at few monsters that we got precise loot statistics (~5 - 10k kills) and those are strong monsters which drop rare items. Then verify if the percentages fits our ranges, I mean to avoid situations, where all loot will be very rare, or there won't be rares at all, because we set wrong % ranges.


  °○   ×  Sv.  ×  ×  Talk  ×   ○°   17:19, September 3, 2009 (UTC)


Always: 100% (duh)

Common: 99,9% - 10%

Uncommon: 10% - 5%

Semi-rare: 5% - 2,5%

Rare: 2,5% - 0.5%

Very rare: 0.5% >


These are, of course, just my own interpretation, and though I don't really care exactly what numbers are used, I do think there should be something inbetween common and semi-rare.


Using Bog Raiders as an example: The creature page lists gold coins, boggy dreads and great health potions as common. The latter should be changed to semi-rare under the current scale now that I think about it, but meh.. Anyway, this gives the impression that getting boggy dreads is just as easy as finding gold, when in fact they only drop 9,75% of the time, according to the loot statistics.


For the sake of argument, lets assume that every Bog Raider which contained loot also had gold coins in it: That's 92.3%, almost ten times as much. They're still easier to find than, say, a great health potion (2,12%) which is semi-rare, but they're in no way as common as gold coins.


Bottom line is, there has to be a middleground.

Uncommon: Why it should be added

Common is 99.9% - 7%, which is a 92.9% difference in the chance of looting said item. I believe that the most important revision that can be made to the rareness scale we currently have is too change Common to 99.9% - 20% (Can we all agree that a 1 in 5 chance of looting something makes it common still? I'd say so.) and make Uncommon a category for 19.9% - 7% (Having a 1 in 10 chance (10%) of looting something is much different then a 1 in 5 chance (20%)), and then leave all other percentages and titles the same. Give me feedback - whether it be positive or negative.
=) Yours truly,
MrVerry 15:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)


Signed! :)
Ghazbaran  Rafailo Sagara   Talk  Contriutions  Morgaroth 18:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.