05-10-2004, 07:32 PM
The diminishing returns have not been altered. That page is equally inaccurate now as it was for 1.09 :)
To be fair, it is not exactly inaccurate, but its numbers are misleading to most people.
Suppose you are wearing a Goldwrap (30% MF) on an otherwise naked char. You probably consider yourself as having 30% MF.
However, you are actually 130% (ie 1.3 times) more likely to find magic items as you are naked. Whether your "MF value" includes this inherent 100% chance you have to begin with is confusing for a lot of people. I have seen questions asked as if it was some native bonus your char starts with, and whether all classes get the same... :blink:
Anyway, the numbers listed on that page are in "100+x" form. ie, if you are wearing 100% MF from various sources, you need to look at the 200% row, which says you have a 171% chance of finding uniques. This means a 1.71 times better chance, not 171% additional chance (which would be 2.71 times the chance).
If you prefer the chart in more familiar terms, you could drop the 0 row and just subtract 100 from everything (including the actual MF column) to get numbers in terms of "additional MF".
OK, I almost always confuse people when I try to explain this, how'd I do this time?
To be fair, it is not exactly inaccurate, but its numbers are misleading to most people.
Suppose you are wearing a Goldwrap (30% MF) on an otherwise naked char. You probably consider yourself as having 30% MF.
However, you are actually 130% (ie 1.3 times) more likely to find magic items as you are naked. Whether your "MF value" includes this inherent 100% chance you have to begin with is confusing for a lot of people. I have seen questions asked as if it was some native bonus your char starts with, and whether all classes get the same... :blink:
Anyway, the numbers listed on that page are in "100+x" form. ie, if you are wearing 100% MF from various sources, you need to look at the 200% row, which says you have a 171% chance of finding uniques. This means a 1.71 times better chance, not 171% additional chance (which would be 2.71 times the chance).
If you prefer the chart in more familiar terms, you could drop the 0 row and just subtract 100 from everything (including the actual MF column) to get numbers in terms of "additional MF".
OK, I almost always confuse people when I try to explain this, how'd I do this time?
"Thank you. We always have a shortage of unfounded opinions, so this will really help us. " - adeyke