It’s real simple the game is designed around 700-1,000c which is the issue I have overall. The difference between 300c and playing at 1,000c are worlds apart in regards of loot and as others have mentioned favor which = more loot.
It’s not some elitist min/maxing it’s just the game heavily rewards you when you push your corruption above 500c.
The reason why people focus on 700-1,000c and it’s been mentioned in other threads is because anything after 1,000c is neglible rewards. That’s the hard cut off. If you are doing 2,000c it just because you want to push your build it isn’t for rewards.
So if the hard cut off for rewards is 1,000c that becomes “the standard” and that makes sense in a “loot hunting power fantasy farming game”.
Now if the Devs want to cap rewards at 300c instead of 1,000c and change how favor works or just cap corruption in general. Then that opens up build diversity because the game is now designed around that lower content. Until then though. That’s just not the case.
I just dont’ think players want to waste the time they have with a F tier build at 300c. Especially when they know it’s drastically different at higher corruption in a loot based game. We are playing an ARPG for loot and the loot is at 700-1,000c.
Again I’m all for the Devs changing their design philosophy and capping rewards or corruption for the 99% of players instead of feeding into the 1% mentality and creating a competitive game where 1,000c is the standard.
The reason why this mentality exist is because of the Devs game design. Want a better mentality for the players and build diversity, the Devs need to change the enviorment they created.
Why so hard cutoff on 1000c? It’s just mental thing. This game have same rules for farming as any other arpg: you clearing with you maximum clear speed with max mf (corruption) possible. If you can clear 2kc with same speed as 1kc, you are doing 2kc.
Because that is the design that EHG decided on. I’m not sure what you aren’t getting?
No it’s based on facts and the math.
No because the cutoff is at 1,000c for rewards
I’m sure you can visit frozen sentinel he has a lot of spreadsheets explaining the math. You want to get too 500c where there is the “first loot decline” if you can farm 700c as fast as 500c then it’s better. The sharp cutoff is at 1,000c. There is no benefit going past that except to test your builds power.
MF is not linear. The target farming for builds is 700-1,000c as per the math and what the game is designed around.
There is no difference in 1,000c and 2,000c or 3,000c. Which is why 1,000c is the standard. There is a big difference before 1,000c. Hence builds only needing to do up too 1,000c. EHG basically took D2’s MF formula and put in DR and caps.
Edit - If EHG didn’t have deminishing returns and cap it at 1,000c we would have a much bigger problem on our hands. Which is why I bring up and make the argument why not cap it at 500c or less? Why not increase build diversity.
There is no cutoff. What you are trying to describe is dimishing return.
The decision what is “best” is always depending on the specific and the build. If a build can do 1500 corruption without meaningfully be slower or unsaver than 1000c, 1500 is better.
But with diminishing returns there is always a range for a “sweetspot”.
No its not, just because that is the range in which its most effective to farm currently doesn’t mean EHG actively designs around that.
You mean the standard for the 1% of players that farm that high
And I used no corruption directly but pure percentiles
Which is factually wrong.
And 1000c is the ‘standard’ in your expectations because beyond near nobody actually plays, it becomes tedious as it’s one-shot galore for nearly every build, few exceptions applying.
It’s both. There are diminishing returns starting at 500c. There is a sharp cut off at 1,000c very similar to how D2 works and adding MF past a certain point actually doesn’t help it’s neglible.
There is almost no difference in 1,000c and 2,000c or 5,000c. There is no real benefit. That is why I worded cut off. It’s neglible.
Disagree. There won’t be an advantage that can be measured. Therefor it’s not “better” It’s neglible. Doing anything past 1,000c is purely for fun and to test your build.
Please if you want to sound smart and know your stuff at least try to use the actual numbers and don’t throw some random numbers around.
Between 300 and 1000c there is no noteable breakpoint for experience.
The breakpoints for experience are 100c, 300c and 1000c
Loot is rng, so its hard to measure, but experience is pretty good to measure.
But nonetheless both can be measured if you take a big enough sample size.
The difference between 1000c and 1500c is very small, but it is there. If your build is strong enough to do it without significant time loss there is still benefit to run 1500c instead of 1000c.
How much faster you would need to run is hard to judge though, because of the %inc. item rarity being very hard to gauge.
Enemies have ~54,57%more health and %inc. rarity and give ~5.928% more experience.
The hardest part about this is quantifiying the rarity and how much impact it has.
Most of the stuff you will find about that will all be anecdotal and not very good to measure how good or bad that increase in corruption is.
Some friends if mine told exactly the same. C2000 useless for farming, c1000 will be x2 or even x3 faster. And much juicer than c500 in some cases. For example - one got multiple triple exalted and one t7t7t7 that was never seen before at c500+ (nemesis drop for sure)
My first good turtle roll happened at c988 - Peak 2lp into Peak 4lp. And some other less miraculous rolls. C300-c600 runs all ended up in pile of 0lp junk. 48 2lp fractal trees were trashed and more and more
I can’t solid proof this take, it is more Feels like than Looks at these sheet tables, but… c500 is better than c100 and c1000 is better than c500. Sum of affixes goes up
