Remove MF completely from game

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

LostForm wrote:

"

Muldeh wrote:

I think rolling maze is less about earning fast loot than it is about sustaining your map pool..

entirely my point. You roll maze because it returns more loot (maps) per map on average, even though it offers zero bonus quality, simply more monsters to kill. It perfectly illustrates that simply killing more monsters is a better way to get loot in game than killing less monsters at possibly much higher magic find stats.

Seriously?

It illustrates that maps per map is more important than maps per unit time, because unlike all the affixes that actually provide map IIQ it provides zero increase to maps per unit time (zero killspeed increase, zero loot per monster increase), and a large increase to maps per map (more monsters per map). This isn't support for your theory, it's the thing that disproves it.

monsters killed per map is comparable to monsters killed per session.

Like I said it is a microcosm, as the [high level] map is close to a closed system , and time to completion does not matter. In order to extrapolate to the rest of the game (non-map play or reliably doing many maps around the same [low]level) you have to bring in another factor (play sessions) in order to talk about efficiency in the same light.

And killing more monsters provides more loot than killing less monsters with more loot per kill, the outcome is the same be it a conversation about high level maps or how to maximize your rewards per unit of play time.

Also doing many maps of the same level will provide more loot than doing one map with excellent rolls. Getting high level maps though is a challenge so the chances you reliably have 10 level 77 maps sitting there is small regardless of your chosen method to acquire loot, so you have to maximize how many monsters you kill per map to maximize your efficiency, very much comparable to limited play time divided up into measurable sessions.

"

LostForm wrote:

monsters killed per session.

This is an arbitrary concept of your own design, and has no more relevance than monsters killed per Mountain Dew. In fact, they might be the same thing.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

LostForm wrote:

monsters killed per map is comparable to monsters killed per session.

This is an arbitrary concept of your own design, and has no more relevance than monsters killed per Mountain Dew.

So you are saying that killing 100 monsters in a map provides better return on investment than killing 70 monsters that have higher output per kill.

But talking about killing 100 monsters and then logging off as opposed to 70 monsters with a higher output per kill before logging off in the same time frame is not relevant?

I fail to understand your reasoning.

"

LostForm wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

LostForm wrote:

monsters killed per map is comparable to monsters killed per session.

This is an arbitrary concept of your own design, and has no more relevance than monsters killed per Mountain Dew.

So you are saying that killing 100 monsters in a map provides better return on investment than killing 70 monsters that have higher output per kill.

But talking about killing 100 monsters and then logging off as opposed to 70 monsters with a higher output per kill before logging off in the same time frame is not relevant?

I fail to understand your reasoning.

It's not the same time frame; if your killspeed is not increased (and that is something Labyrinthine does not do), your killspeed is not increased. Plus, that mod is more like double (or triple) size anyway. So your choices are to run one maze map, or run two non-maze maps; you get the same amount of loot either way, in the same timeframe, and when you choose to log off and take a nap is entirely your business and has no statistical impact. The only real difference here is map cost; one costs two maps, the other costs one map.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It's not the same time frame; if your killspeed is not increased (and that is something Labyrinthine does not do), your killspeed is not increased. Plus, that mod is more like double (or triple) size anyway. So your choices are to run one maze map, or run two non-maze maps; you get the same amount of loot either way, in the same timeframe, and when you choose to log off and take a nap is entirely your business and has no statistical impact. The only real difference here is map cost; one costs two maps, the other costs one map.

right so if we say one map is one map unit. Within that one unit, you want to kill as many monsters as possible, as that is the best way to get returns on running the map. Kill speed does not matter how many mobs you see within one map unit.

So if we say a one hour play session is one play session unit. Within that unit, you want to kill as many monsters as possible, as that is the best way to get returns on your one hour spent in game. Kill speed will effect how many mobs you see within one play session unit.

Killing more mobs regardless of the fact that they will drop less loot per kill, is the best way to get returns on your unit of play time, be it one map, be it one hour in game (or 12 or w/e).

Area is a maze provides more monsters per map (among other mods that provide little to no iiq increase but up how many mobs you see within the one map unit). Kill speed provides more monsters per session in game as a whole.

Choosing to go for more rewards per kill is a way to offset the 'kill more mobs' advantage, but it still falls short of actually just killing more mobs, as shown by labyrinthine being a desired affix on every map. Also illustrated by party play being touted as the most rewarding way to play even though you on average individually get less loot per kill than playing solo, you will kill way way more monsters in a good party over the same time (or amount of play session units) put in playing solo in the same zones.

"

LostForm wrote:

Choosing to go for more rewards per kill is a way to offset the 'kill more mobs' advantage, but it still falls short of actually just killing more mobs, as shown by labyrinthine being a desired affix on every map. Also illustrated by party play being touted as the most rewarding way to play even though you get less loot per kill than playing solo, you will kill way way more monsters in a good party.

Which, although absolutely true, is utterly irrelevant to your point, which argues for kills per unit time. Labyrinthine allows more kills per map, not more kills per unit time, which proves that loot per map is dominant over loot per unit time. This is the problem with IIR/IIQ; they give more kills per map, and kill speed does not.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

LostForm wrote:

Choosing to go for more rewards per kill is a way to offset the 'kill more mobs' advantage, but it still falls short of actually just killing more mobs, as shown by labyrinthine being a desired affix on every map. Also illustrated by party play being touted as the most rewarding way to play even though you get less loot per kill than playing solo, you will kill way way more monsters in a good party.

Which, although absolutely true, is utterly irrelevant to your point, which argues for kills per unit time. Labyrinthine allows more kills per map, not more kills per unit time, which proves that loot per map is dominant over loot per unit time. This is the problem with IIR/IIQ; they give more kills per map, and kill speed does not.

But you are choosing a mod that absolutely give zero increase to IIQ. You choose the affix exactly because it provides more monsters to kill per map unit.

Exactly the same way that killing more monsters per unit time provides more monsters to kill in the game at large.

You are choosing more monsters to kill rather than more loot per kill by choosing the maze mod. It is exactly the same as choosing to farm docks much faster rather than slower with more iiq.

"

LostForm wrote:

You are choosing more monsters to kill rather than more loot per kill by choosing the maze mod. It is exactly the same as choosing to farm docks much faster rather than slower with more iiq.

No, it is not, because there is a difference between monsters killed per map and monsters killed per unit time.

It's clear at this point that you have no idea how to properly determine units of measurement. I have no intention of further replying to you.

"

Hovergame wrote:

"

iamstryker wrote:

You seriously have a big problem with other peoples opinions don't you? Its not the end of the world if other people disagree. No need to take a dump on everything other people say that you disagree with. Just respectfully disagree and discuss like an adult, thats what the forums are really here for. Not to freak out over every person who doesn't have your opinion.

No, I have a problem with kids telling all over the place "I am not a nolife like you, I have a life". But, again, you only read what you want and forget the rest. To discuss between adults, you need to be at least 2 adults and not talk like a kid.

That player could very well be older than you. Your use of the word "kid" is unnecessary and over the top in a video game forum. You do realize that flying off the handle like that makes you sound like a kid right? Everyone has the right to express how they feel about the game regardless of what that opinion is. When an adult disagrees he has the ability to respond in a non insulting, judgmental, and arrogant way. Who is going to listen to you when you respond like that?

"

visiON123 wrote:

A bloo bloo bloo I'm too bad to farm so GGG MUST cater to my needs
lmfao
babies

A perfect example of someone not taking the time to actually listen to anyone in a thread, dropping a short arrogant stereotypical and useless response and taking off. These are the true kids of the forums, regardless of their age they apparently never grew up enough to learn how to communicate.