Such an excellent work Grip!
This will come very handy as a reference in the future.
LK for Zod? Sounds like project.
This will come very handy as a reference in the future.
LK for Zod? Sounds like project.
LK vs Travincal vs Cows - runefinding guide
- Thread starter Gripphon1
- Start date
Since you mention going to act 4 after an lk run, I think it would be cool to see a hybrid run. First do lk, then do ROF chests. The extra 4 seconds to go to act
4 could be replaced with ROF chests instead, as they only take 4 to 5 seconds. This could possibly be the best way to farm any rune.
4 could be replaced with ROF chests instead, as they only take 4 to 5 seconds. This could possibly be the best way to farm any rune.
I did that a LOT in 1.07 and some have done it a decent amount in 1.10.. I think jjscud even has a youtube video showing his map for those kinds of runs
I edited that section about map rerolling in Travincal to contain more precise details and I tried to explain what kind of maps are keepers so you don't waste too much time trying to roll that perfect map because it might take too much time. Also added technique of "2 character rolling maps" to continuously upgrade your maps without ever losing good map for the worse one. In case you have 2 characters for the task ofc.
I will add RoF part too these days, so whenever you do some optimizing, just post info in this thread and I will add it to the guide.
Last edited:
Since I saw people tend to have pretty decent Travincal maps, I would advise for everyone to reread map rolling section of Travincal (what kind of map do you want) about "2 characters rolling technique" even though I think everyone knows about this, but just in case. I know some of you might seek perfect Travincal or ANY map really since same principle is valid for any map rolling anywhere. All you need is characters which is the only problematic part of it.
With time I will upgrade guide bit by bit adding new stuff I forgot to mention or some fine details, but I'll report all changes in here.
With time I will upgrade guide bit by bit adding new stuff I forgot to mention or some fine details, but I'll report all changes in here.
Not sure if I'm not understanding properly, but the time you're spending to go back to A4 would be used no matter what regardless of if you're headed to the fortress or the RoF, so the RoF runs will always be additional time on top of whatever you had before.
It would take a bit of re-rolling to get an ideal LK map with a RoF map too, but definitely doable (and I think a couple guys in the RoF superchest thread mentioned having one just by fluke. My gut told me this wouldn't be worth it to tack on, but I ran some numbers and I'll let them do the talking. I'm going to assume a 25s LK run time and 5s for the additional RoF portion.
I did 6.5k runs of the RoF on /p7 and got 2 Sur, 5 Ohm and a pile of lesser runes. *IF* the runs add an extra 5 seconds, you could use that time instead to do additional 1300 LK runs (at 25s/run). According to the averages you'd get 1 Sur and probably 2/3 Vex+ runes in that time. This seems shows that it IS worth it to add on the RoF, at least if you use my personal running numbers in terms of strictly time spent.
I think this is misleading though. In my experience, the RoF is much more fickle than LK and inconsistent with it's Sur+ payout. For example, my summary of my /p7 runs has over 6k runs in between getting a Sur. This means the chances (again, as per my numbers) of getting a Sur are only 1 in 3k or so. So do you do 1000 LK/Rof runs, or so 1200 LK runs in the same amount of time?
I'd say those extra 200 LK runs will almost always have a higher payout on average. Even moreso if you count gems/charms/etc etc.
Of course there is always the chance you land a Jah/Cham from RoF, in which case it would more than make up the difference. Whether or not the very small chance of hitting Jah/Cham offsets the generally more plentiful drops from LK is something that I think only testing can really reveal. But hey, if it's something you like doing and it makes the runs more enjoyable, then go for it. I would probably add it on if my map happened to spawn with both options, but I don't know that I'd go looking specifically for that kind of a map.
There are few things to consider and few information I'd need to even start any sort of calculation.
1. How hard it is to roll a map where LK is circular and great AND you also have act 4 superchests nearby?
- if I have to talk from my experience rolling both type of maps, someone could easily spend hours and hours of map rolling to have anything close to that, correct me if I'm wrong. By hours I mean you will roll maps for so long you might go crazy from it. Practicality issue?
2. Even if someone rolls such maps, what are the odds LK map will be as good as it could be? Perhaps he rolled slightly suboptimal LK map with optimal RoF map, and question is wouldn't it be simply better to roll as perfect LK map as possible regardless of RoF? Rolling both maps "perfect" seems like an awfully impractical thing to do.
3. How much time does RoF part actually add to running? Since we completely skip that startup from town, we kinda save at least 2 seconds by doing RoF after LK instead only doing RoF running. Also, s/e time was problematic when I did only RoF running but it might not be problematic if everything is done after LK run. So, time added is...?
4. Mathematically it is possible to calculate outcome of such running, but it is mathematically impossible to calculate how much better it is to have possibility of farming also Jah and Cham instead of having higher chance of scoring more Sur and other runes what LK provides in masses. This would be very individual component of evaluating of the profit for such running, rather than objective one. For the info part, however, is perfectly fine.
1. How hard it is to roll a map where LK is circular and great AND you also have act 4 superchests nearby?
- if I have to talk from my experience rolling both type of maps, someone could easily spend hours and hours of map rolling to have anything close to that, correct me if I'm wrong. By hours I mean you will roll maps for so long you might go crazy from it. Practicality issue?
2. Even if someone rolls such maps, what are the odds LK map will be as good as it could be? Perhaps he rolled slightly suboptimal LK map with optimal RoF map, and question is wouldn't it be simply better to roll as perfect LK map as possible regardless of RoF? Rolling both maps "perfect" seems like an awfully impractical thing to do.
3. How much time does RoF part actually add to running? Since we completely skip that startup from town, we kinda save at least 2 seconds by doing RoF after LK instead only doing RoF running. Also, s/e time was problematic when I did only RoF running but it might not be problematic if everything is done after LK run. So, time added is...?
4. Mathematically it is possible to calculate outcome of such running, but it is mathematically impossible to calculate how much better it is to have possibility of farming also Jah and Cham instead of having higher chance of scoring more Sur and other runes what LK provides in masses. This would be very individual component of evaluating of the profit for such running, rather than objective one. For the info part, however, is perfectly fine.
If it takes 4 seconds to get to act 4, then I estimate it would only add 2 to 3 seconds to instead take RoF and pop 2 chests.
RoF maps don't vary as much as lk. You either have 2 chests below the waypoint or you don't. The goal is to roll a map with that, and 2 huts in LK. The huts don't have to be perfect, just feasible to get cast a tp or use waypoint IF your lucky.
RoF will give a steady supply of Ohms, just as useful as other runes since you want to roll a 6bo CTA or nice exile.
Once I get my characters leveled, I'll do some runs and see how hard it is to roll a map. From the stress testing I did, I found 6 Jah and 2 Cham after about 80k runs. This means you can score one every 10k runs or so. The big appeal is cubing a Cham or Zod without having to waste ber runes.
RoF maps don't vary as much as lk. You either have 2 chests below the waypoint or you don't. The goal is to roll a map with that, and 2 huts in LK. The huts don't have to be perfect, just feasible to get cast a tp or use waypoint IF your lucky.
RoF will give a steady supply of Ohms, just as useful as other runes since you want to roll a 6bo CTA or nice exile.
Once I get my characters leveled, I'll do some runs and see how hard it is to roll a map. From the stress testing I did, I found 6 Jah and 2 Cham after about 80k runs. This means you can score one every 10k runs or so. The big appeal is cubing a Cham or Zod without having to waste ber runes.
Going back to the issue of finding a good Trav map, even if u find a good map where they are clumped up together like i just did, it could happen that lets say 1 time out of 8 they spawn in a different formation, spread out all around and/or half inside and half outside...its realy tedious and timeconsuming. Sticking with this for now and might just skip that 1 untill i get myself to find a better map. Current one is kind of a 3ish, they are all on the balcony but not at the dead end of the balcony.
You are going to Act 4 regardless of whether you are going to town or the RoF WP. The extra time it takes to go from the WP to popping the chests is what you need to know. I'd guess it's anywhere from 5-7 seconds for the average player.
The problem here is with sacrificing LK efficiency to get an RoF map. Losing a few seconds in LK over thousands of runs would, in my opinion, negate any efficiency you may gain from adding RoF. Of course if you get very lucky and score some Jah/Chams that goes out the window, but in terms of likeliness I don't think that's high.
Another problem with this is that RoF monster densities can be a real pain. If you get a map where the bosspack densities tend to be a bit high in the superchest area, you're either skipping a chest or aborting fully on a semi-regular basis. Again, it's doable to get a fairly efficient map for both areas, but you have to compare it to having an ideal LK map since that is the alternative.
Not having to waste Ber runes is a huge benefit, and that would be the kicker here for making this a good alternative for those looking to cube a Cham/Zod. Maybe for those niche runners that are looking to cube that high this could challenge cows/Trav but I'm skeptical of that as well. Well, let's see.
Let's assume you get lucky and get a Cham after 10k runs. For posterity's sake let's assume you have a damn good map/char, are focusing on runes almost exclusively and can do these runs in 30s (25s LK/5s RoF)
10k LK runs gets you 10 Surs and 2 Bers according to the averages. That's 3 Jah's, or 1 Cham 1 Jah
The RoF portion would get you (let's assume the high end) 1 Cham, 1 Ber, 3 Surs (this is mostly a guess, I could be way off)
Total with all cubed: 1 Zod 1 Cham in 83.33 hours.
We can look at it another way too, how many runs would you need to get a Cham in at RoF to compete with just LK? Meaning, how quickly can you cube a Cham from LK alone? well you'd need 4 Ber's total.
6k runs gets you 6 Sur 1 Ber which gets you there, and has a bit of room for bad luck Ber-wise.
6k runs at 25s = 41.6 hours
Do that twice and you have a Zod at 83.2 hours. This is higher than Gripps calculation above because I'm assuming that you either get a Ber or you don't after the ~3600 runs, instead of counting "half-Bers". Not sure which method would be more reliable, math and I don't mix very well.
Here's the kicker though, if you focus on LK you can get an even better map and run at 20s. This would net you a Zod in 60-65 hours. Add in another 20 hours or so and you'd have yourself another Jah rune.
So that would leave the comparison at 80 hours ran, generally:
LK only: 1 Zod 1 Jah
LK/RoF: 1 Zod 1 Cham
So did I just prove myself wrong? It depends. Basically what happened here is that it's no faster to find a Zod through RoF running unless you get lucky and drop a Cham/Jah before the 10k mark, since you'd get a Zod from LK by then anyways. Keep in mind this is considering you get a damn good LK/RoF map combo, which who knows how much work that will take. It's also assuming you pop a Cham after 10k, which is on the lucky side IMO.
So it goes back to the age-old question. Is it worth it for you personally to try for the lucky drop, or to take the more consistent method of LK? My take is that if you're running *ONLY* for runes and that's all you're picking up, add in RoF and hope for the best. If you're charm/jewel hunting too, straight LK is probably the best method.
All that said, I really enjoy RoF running and hope people actually put this to the test (I might do some myself too). It would be really cool to have concrete numbers here and see how much we could improve it.
My calculations are strictly mathematical without any assumption whether or not something drops, but rather everything drops at average expected rate. Later I'm planning to do calculation about that RoF thing taking into consideration whole known simulated droptable and with some assumptions. But, I could say right away that adding RoF to LK will mean slightly faster Ohm/Lo farming, slightly slower Sur/Ber farming and addition of Jah or Cham which would drop once every ~16k runs if that is worth something (if I estimate ALL LK running I've ever done in my career and assuming I also did RoF at the same time, by now I'd be richer by 1 Jah and 1 Cham by expectations). So, 10k runs Cham is incredibly optimistic since it drops once in 32k runs at average assuming 2 chest map which I will assume since I've never seen 3 chest map for myself so I won't count it as doable to have along with good LK map, odds are astronomical.
EDIT
I also have to mention my calculations completely exclude any luck factor since it is impossible to calculate anything with luck. If someone is feeling lucky, he should definitely run RoF since he might find a Cham or two in 10 runs he will do.
Another simple way to simulate more realistic luck-free drops is not to assume 10k runs, but instead assume someone did 100 million runs and then calculate expected averages of drops. In general the more runs you do, the more they will show average expected drops of items. This is why even if we take all runs ever done in Travincal/LK etc from all players who ever played, we might get something close to expected values, though it would still be slightly off. I calculate stuff as if someone did infinite number of runs and everything is strictly average.
Another fun fact: remember that insane 292 RFO score I had? If I take into consideration ALL RFO sets I did on tournaments, my average score is only ~2% off expected average. Just math things.
EDIT
I also have to mention my calculations completely exclude any luck factor since it is impossible to calculate anything with luck. If someone is feeling lucky, he should definitely run RoF since he might find a Cham or two in 10 runs he will do.
Another simple way to simulate more realistic luck-free drops is not to assume 10k runs, but instead assume someone did 100 million runs and then calculate expected averages of drops. In general the more runs you do, the more they will show average expected drops of items. This is why even if we take all runs ever done in Travincal/LK etc from all players who ever played, we might get something close to expected values, though it would still be slightly off. I calculate stuff as if someone did infinite number of runs and everything is strictly average.
Another fun fact: remember that insane 292 RFO score I had? If I take into consideration ALL RFO sets I did on tournaments, my average score is only ~2% off expected average. Just math things.
Last edited:
Exactly, the other way to look at it (if these numbers hold) is that it's not drastically less efficient to add in RoF, runewise. This is good news for those of us who like to have some variety in our runs as you're not crippling yourself by doing so, especially if you're hunting for Ohm/Lo.
3 Tyrael's in your stashes?Thanks for all those kind words, everyone
Yes, I'm really dedicated farmer and still have a reason to be. There are few potential goals I'd like to fulfill yet apart from testing game limitations. I'd like to possibly complete second grail for which I miss caddy and Zod. I can't seem to get that Zod, while caddy will be problem of its own since I'd need to MF for it, and I'm kinda less interested to MF lately. Even third grail might be possible - if I find 2 caddys, 2 Zods, mang and stormlash. That is too far away though.
One minor caveat to the LK drop odds, I'm almost certain that they do not account for locked chest variations. This should on average overestimate runes by ~1/8th or perhaps more? 1/8th of patterns may be locked only. Additionally, if people aren't careful, there is a 1/8th chance that a pattern is repeated as its locked variant. If we assume both of these errors occur, then it's actually higher than 1/8. Unfortunately almost all of the old screenies are dead, so it's really impossible to figure this out. But I would likely factor in an across the board 1/8th drop in calculations if I were getting very nitty gritty with the numbers here.
Question was whether or not adding 2 RoF chests could be worth it at the end of LK running. Here is simple math everyone can get the answer for themselves for their own assumptions of runtimes for both LK and RoF.
X = runtimes for LK only
Y = runtimes for both LK and RoF together
In general, Y = X + z + RoF
where:
X = runtimes for LK
z = additional runtimes assuming less perfect LK map combined with RoF together instead of rolling just perfect LK map alone (most probable outcome)
RoF = additional RoF time added on top of LK running, I see value of 5 seconds is discussed for this
If you want to assume perfect Lk map accompanied with RoF map, then z value is zero and Y = X + RoF
For this calculations I assumed player is opening 6 LK and 2 RoF chests without skipping runs (more probable for RoF part of map) for a total of 8 chests per run. I also calculated value of rune patterns for both LK and for combination of LK + RoF (where average number of patterns is used). For patterns I also assumed cubing runes so that you are not incredibly confused by values I used.
Farming Lo runes
I start here because I just don't see a reason why would someone farm Ohm specifically, chances are he found enough of them by farming his first Enigma. On the other hand Lo is valuable for Grief rolling and even 20 might not be enough.
Cubed to Lo: Ohm
LK Lo patterns: 4.5 @ 6 chests
Lk + RoF Lo patterns: 5.375 @ 8 chests
If Y/X < 1.5925, then RoF speeds Lo farming process.
Assumption: RoF part adds 5 seconds, z = 0 (pretty much perfect conditions for RoF running!)
Conclusion: if LK > 8.44 s, then RoF part does speed up Lo farming process.
More realistic assumption: RoF adds 5 seconds, z = 3 seconds (lets assume this)
Conclusion: if LK > 13.5 s, RoF speeds up farming process of Lo runes. So, always.
Concrete estimations: LK = 22 s, LK + RoF = 30 s (due to z = 3 s for more realistic scenario)
Time to farm Lo only by LK: ~14.8 h
Time to farm Lo with LK + RoF: ~12.7 h
Time saved: ~2.1 h
Farming Ber runes
Cubed to Ber: Sur
LK Ber patterns: 8.5 @ 6 chests
Lk + RoF Ber patterns: 7.625 @ 8 chests
If Y/X < 1.1961, then RoF speeds Ber farming process.
Assumption: RoF part adds 5 seconds, z = 0 (pretty much perfect conditions for RoF running!)
Conclusion: if LK > 25.5 s, then RoF part does speed up Ber farming process. Decent players have sub 25 s no problem, some players even run Lk at sub 20s pace, so I guess this just depends on a player, but LK obviously has higher potential for Ber farming than adding RoF to it.
More realistic assumption: RoF adds 5 seconds, z = 3 seconds (lets assume this)
Conclusion: if LK > 40.8 s, RoF speeds up farming process of Ber runes. So, in a more realistic scenario never and not even close.
Concrete estimations: LK = 22 s, LK + RoF = 30 s (due to z = 3 s for more realistic scenario)
Time to farm Ber only by LK: ~7.9 h
Time to farm Ber with LK + RoF: ~9 h
Time wasted: ~1.1 h
Farming Jah runes
Cubed to Jah: Sur and Ber
LK Jah patterns: 4.25 @ 6 chests
Lk + RoF Jah patterns: 4.0625 @ 8 chests
If Y/X < 1.275, then RoF speeds Jah farming process.
Assumption: RoF part adds 5 seconds, z = 0 (pretty much perfect conditions for RoF running!)
Conclusion: if LK > 18.2 s, then RoF part does speed up Jah farming process. So, pretty much for everyone except fastest LK runners.
More realistic assumption: RoF adds 5 seconds, z = 3 seconds (lets assume this)
Conclusion: if LK > 29 s, RoF speeds up farming process of Jah runes. So, most players farm Jah runes faster by running LK and not bothering with RoF at all.
Concrete estimations: LK = 22 s, LK + RoF = 30 s (due to z = 3 s for more realistic scenario)
Time to farm Jah only by LK: ~15.7 h
Time to farm Jah with LK + RoF: ~16.8 h
Time wasted: ~1.1 h
Farming Cham runes
Cubed to Cham: Sur, Ber and Jah
- if not assuming this, then there is no point at comparing LK vs LK + RoF at all since LK then can never score Cham.
LK Cham patterns: 2.125 @ 6 chests
Lk + RoF Jah patterns: 2.28125 @ 8 chests
If Y/X < 1.431, then RoF speeds Cham farming process.
Assumption: RoF part adds 5 seconds, z = 0 (pretty much perfect conditions for RoF running!)
Conclusion: if LK > 11.6 s, then RoF part does speed up Cham farming process. So, always.
More realistic assumption: RoF adds 5 seconds, z = 3 seconds (lets assume this)
Conclusion: if LK > 18.6 s, RoF speeds up farming process of Cham runes. So,everyone except fastest LK runners would profit from adding RoF to their running.
Concrete estimations: LK = 22 s, LK + RoF = 30 s (due to z = 3 s for more realistic scenario)
Time to farm Cham only by LK: ~31.4 h
Time to farm Cham with LK + RoF: ~29.9 h
Time saved: ~1.5 h
Conclusion:
I don't know how precise I could be, but adding RoF on top of LK is not harmful, nearly not at all (if we assume we always open all chests in RoF). However, for sub 20s LK runners I'd still stick only to LK regardless of RoF map. For 22+s LK runners RoF could be nice addition just to break some routine.
X = runtimes for LK only
Y = runtimes for both LK and RoF together
In general, Y = X + z + RoF
where:
X = runtimes for LK
z = additional runtimes assuming less perfect LK map combined with RoF together instead of rolling just perfect LK map alone (most probable outcome)
RoF = additional RoF time added on top of LK running, I see value of 5 seconds is discussed for this
If you want to assume perfect Lk map accompanied with RoF map, then z value is zero and Y = X + RoF
For this calculations I assumed player is opening 6 LK and 2 RoF chests without skipping runs (more probable for RoF part of map) for a total of 8 chests per run. I also calculated value of rune patterns for both LK and for combination of LK + RoF (where average number of patterns is used). For patterns I also assumed cubing runes so that you are not incredibly confused by values I used.
Farming Lo runes
I start here because I just don't see a reason why would someone farm Ohm specifically, chances are he found enough of them by farming his first Enigma. On the other hand Lo is valuable for Grief rolling and even 20 might not be enough.
Cubed to Lo: Ohm
LK Lo patterns: 4.5 @ 6 chests
Lk + RoF Lo patterns: 5.375 @ 8 chests
If Y/X < 1.5925, then RoF speeds Lo farming process.
Assumption: RoF part adds 5 seconds, z = 0 (pretty much perfect conditions for RoF running!)
Conclusion: if LK > 8.44 s, then RoF part does speed up Lo farming process.
More realistic assumption: RoF adds 5 seconds, z = 3 seconds (lets assume this)
Conclusion: if LK > 13.5 s, RoF speeds up farming process of Lo runes. So, always.
Concrete estimations: LK = 22 s, LK + RoF = 30 s (due to z = 3 s for more realistic scenario)
Time to farm Lo only by LK: ~14.8 h
Time to farm Lo with LK + RoF: ~12.7 h
Time saved: ~2.1 h
Farming Ber runes
Cubed to Ber: Sur
LK Ber patterns: 8.5 @ 6 chests
Lk + RoF Ber patterns: 7.625 @ 8 chests
If Y/X < 1.1961, then RoF speeds Ber farming process.
Assumption: RoF part adds 5 seconds, z = 0 (pretty much perfect conditions for RoF running!)
Conclusion: if LK > 25.5 s, then RoF part does speed up Ber farming process. Decent players have sub 25 s no problem, some players even run Lk at sub 20s pace, so I guess this just depends on a player, but LK obviously has higher potential for Ber farming than adding RoF to it.
More realistic assumption: RoF adds 5 seconds, z = 3 seconds (lets assume this)
Conclusion: if LK > 40.8 s, RoF speeds up farming process of Ber runes. So, in a more realistic scenario never and not even close.
Concrete estimations: LK = 22 s, LK + RoF = 30 s (due to z = 3 s for more realistic scenario)
Time to farm Ber only by LK: ~7.9 h
Time to farm Ber with LK + RoF: ~9 h
Time wasted: ~1.1 h
Farming Jah runes
Cubed to Jah: Sur and Ber
LK Jah patterns: 4.25 @ 6 chests
Lk + RoF Jah patterns: 4.0625 @ 8 chests
If Y/X < 1.275, then RoF speeds Jah farming process.
Assumption: RoF part adds 5 seconds, z = 0 (pretty much perfect conditions for RoF running!)
Conclusion: if LK > 18.2 s, then RoF part does speed up Jah farming process. So, pretty much for everyone except fastest LK runners.
More realistic assumption: RoF adds 5 seconds, z = 3 seconds (lets assume this)
Conclusion: if LK > 29 s, RoF speeds up farming process of Jah runes. So, most players farm Jah runes faster by running LK and not bothering with RoF at all.
Concrete estimations: LK = 22 s, LK + RoF = 30 s (due to z = 3 s for more realistic scenario)
Time to farm Jah only by LK: ~15.7 h
Time to farm Jah with LK + RoF: ~16.8 h
Time wasted: ~1.1 h
Farming Cham runes
Cubed to Cham: Sur, Ber and Jah
- if not assuming this, then there is no point at comparing LK vs LK + RoF at all since LK then can never score Cham.
LK Cham patterns: 2.125 @ 6 chests
Lk + RoF Jah patterns: 2.28125 @ 8 chests
If Y/X < 1.431, then RoF speeds Cham farming process.
Assumption: RoF part adds 5 seconds, z = 0 (pretty much perfect conditions for RoF running!)
Conclusion: if LK > 11.6 s, then RoF part does speed up Cham farming process. So, always.
More realistic assumption: RoF adds 5 seconds, z = 3 seconds (lets assume this)
Conclusion: if LK > 18.6 s, RoF speeds up farming process of Cham runes. So,everyone except fastest LK runners would profit from adding RoF to their running.
Concrete estimations: LK = 22 s, LK + RoF = 30 s (due to z = 3 s for more realistic scenario)
Time to farm Cham only by LK: ~31.4 h
Time to farm Cham with LK + RoF: ~29.9 h
Time saved: ~1.5 h
Conclusion:
I don't know how precise I could be, but adding RoF on top of LK is not harmful, nearly not at all (if we assume we always open all chests in RoF). However, for sub 20s LK runners I'd still stick only to LK regardless of RoF map. For 22+s LK runners RoF could be nice addition just to break some routine.
Last edited:
3 Tyrael's in your stashes?
Click
Not only that, but in time I found 3rd one I found more Tyrael's than Templar's in areas. Now I'm at 3/3 on those. And 2 extra from Pindle which I don't count since those can't turn Tyrael's anyway.
@Brak
Might be true, but there is no way to be sure. Also, if 1/8 of chests are locked, this might also mean 1/8 of patterns could belong to locked patterns? I'm not sure I understand that issue with locked chests and patterns.
Locked chests cause two problems
1) If the reported pattern only appears when the chest is locked due to the extended drop, it will only appear once in 65,000 x 8 chests, thus the odds of this locked chest specific pattern are closer to once in 500,000 chests.
2) If the reported pattern looks like a new pattern because it has added items to the 'fingerprint' of the drop, it actually doesn't exist as a unique pattern and the drop odds should be downgraded according to that lost unique drop.
1) If the reported pattern only appears when the chest is locked due to the extended drop, it will only appear once in 65,000 x 8 chests, thus the odds of this locked chest specific pattern are closer to once in 500,000 chests.
2) If the reported pattern looks like a new pattern because it has added items to the 'fingerprint' of the drop, it actually doesn't exist as a unique pattern and the drop odds should be downgraded according to that lost unique drop.
Good to see some math done. Only time will tell when people actually start doing it. A couple notes:
- while I get that you may have a bunch of ohm runes while farming for others, I find them very useful in rolling ctas. They are almost as useful as Lo.
- you didn't mention Zod, but either way adding RoF would definitely be quicker. As expected sur/ber is better with lk only. But if you score a Cham in RoF, your halfway there!
- in order to accurately calculate the RoF runtime, we need to replace the time it takes to go to act 4. What I'm saying is, if it takes 5 seconds after lk chests to cast to and go-to wp, it would take 2 to 3 seconds to click RoF instead of the fortress, then 2 seconds to tele down to the chests. But if you don't get a good lk map, it would add 3 to 4 seconds.
- while I get that you may have a bunch of ohm runes while farming for others, I find them very useful in rolling ctas. They are almost as useful as Lo.
- you didn't mention Zod, but either way adding RoF would definitely be quicker. As expected sur/ber is better with lk only. But if you score a Cham in RoF, your halfway there!
- in order to accurately calculate the RoF runtime, we need to replace the time it takes to go to act 4. What I'm saying is, if it takes 5 seconds after lk chests to cast to and go-to wp, it would take 2 to 3 seconds to click RoF instead of the fortress, then 2 seconds to tele down to the chests. But if you don't get a good lk map, it would add 3 to 4 seconds.
@Brak very interesting theory. This would mean, in essence we have 128k patterns.
65k locked, 65k unlocked
This would explain why some patterns spawn more or less often, such as the Cham in rof. The locked chests added no drop is almost like a player setting. Players 7 locked chest is actually players 7.5. As treeharl found out in 1.09b, the nodrop maxes out around players 20. So we need to do thorough testing to see if we indeed have 2x65k patterns. I guess it's time to pop in, hack the game, and find the answer xD
65k locked, 65k unlocked
This would explain why some patterns spawn more or less often, such as the Cham in rof. The locked chests added no drop is almost like a player setting. Players 7 locked chest is actually players 7.5. As treeharl found out in 1.09b, the nodrop maxes out around players 20. So we need to do thorough testing to see if we indeed have 2x65k patterns. I guess it's time to pop in, hack the game, and find the answer xD
Google