Our view on map drop rates

"

silentman wrote:

With this we emanate some problems :
1- players can't get higher level maps for their levels.

personally i don't think that this is a problem at all in the current state of the game with act 3 comming in OB and other end game content in the future.

"

Chucullinn wrote:

Do you not think it is essentially flawed that a player has to sink significant resources and pretty much go broke to progress through the end game?

I personally think it's a great idea as you an dump all your "make magic items and pimp them"-orbs into it. (to be honest, maps were the first thing which made me go out of alt orbs several times which is great, imho)
Alching my maps is a bit different. I usually only alched superior maps or high level maps.

--in general--
i made the personal experience that maze/size mods are still superior to other mods/quantity.

--suggestions--
if GGG doesn't want people to just roll easy, cheap mods it might be a good idea to tie them to a more difficult mod.
f.e.: player wants "monster packsize +over9000%", GGG ties it to "monster insert random elemental damage here +over9000%" or "monsters attackspeed/damage/movespeed +1337%". (i dunno if this migth be to hard for newer players which just reached the endgame)


--final word--
it might be that the map content is easy because people are severely overleveled, that's why most of us don't give a feedback about how difficult maps are.
i'm looking forward for more awesome stuff from GGG, you guys rock!

"

ThePlanckEpoch wrote:

"

silentman wrote:

With this we emanate some problems :
1- players can't get higher level maps for their levels.

personally i don't think that this is a problem at all in the current state of the game with act 3 comming in OB and other end game content in the future.

Act 3 is not endgame because just like act 2 now when we have act 3 and people finish every thing maps will be what remains.

PVP will not solve this if the map system is broken as it is.

"

silentman wrote:

"

ThePlanckEpoch wrote:

"

silentman wrote:

With this we emanate some problems :
1- players can't get higher level maps for their levels.

personally i don't think that this is a problem at all in the current state of the game with act 3 comming in OB and other end game content in the future.

Act 3 is not endgame because just like act 2 now when we have act 3 and people finish every thing maps will be what remains.

PVP will not solve this if the map system is broken as it is.

I think i should explain my point of view a bit further. Currently the endgame beginns at level 60. these are 40 levels you have to cover with endgame. another act might push this (or not, i have no clue).
And yes, finding higher level maps is currently broken (i misread the post i cited, i overread the "maps"-word, so that's my bad, i should probably get some sleep)

I skimmed through this thread and I saw a lot of opinions on random based endgame and I felt like dropping some thoughts on that "issue".

As a big fan of Hack n Slash RPG games I feel that the randomness and unforgiving endgame is absolutely crucial because leveling from 0 - 60 is not that time consuming and it doesnt take any special gear to do it.

Just look at DIII how boring it became as soon as you reached level 60 and killed the diablo in inferno, its like from hero to zero.

Having the endgame being almost undoable keeps the drive up even if it will mean that players will need to do other stuff like leveing other characters, pvp, running events or just trying different gear.

I just dont want to jump over the fence and then see there is nothing on the other side.

There is a difference between an endgame offering variety and yet be challenging and having to fear of dropping out of the endgame in the long run or because of a bad run.

Let me run low(est) level maps without having to grind endlessly and I can much more easily accept that getting higher level maps can be difficult. More readily available L60 maps still offer enough variety to be a much better "base" endgame than farming Pyramid or Fellshrine, yet leave enough room for challenge (and grind if you want to) with the higher level maps.

_tweety_'s though is genius though:

"

The difficulty of a map should not be related to the amount of maps you get out of it, but to the level of the maps you get out. By doing difficult maps you show that you are able to do higher level maps.

I'm all for that. Let people who prefer say +30% or lower quality maps stay in their map range, and if it's L60, and make higher quality maps pay off in higher difficulty maps to let those progress who want to and "can hack it".

The progression argument is affected by Act 3 coming at some point, but it merely moves the relevant levels from say level 65 to 75. Then it's the same discussion.

I still don't see why even basic level maps have to be so scarce. And why the endgame as a whole even has the possibility of players falling out of it again after having reached it.

"

ethone wrote:

...
And why the endgame as a whole even has the possibility of players falling out of it again after having reached it.

I agree with most of your post but this sentence. If you didn't fall out you would simply stay in the highest set of maps and run them over and over while selling or using in a recipe the rest. The possibility of getting down actually adds to the variety of maps you are running.

Edit: Actually I didn't understand it well I think. I'll just leave it there to prevent confusion.

I meant falling out of the entire endgame, so running out of ANY maps to run.
I don't much mind high map levels being rare or more difficult to get to, and the possibility of falling from say L66 maps back to running 65s (or further, if didn't stack up enough maps to sustain). I just mind falling back to Pyramid/Fellshrine once I had the taste of the maps system which provided me with inherent variety and the additional bonus of being able to roll mods for even more variety.

Again, I don't believe access to end game content should be dependent upon access to end game content. Even if maps dropped 1000% more frequently, which is not something I'd really like to see.. I like the idea of them being high risk, high reward, and fairly exclusive. Kind of like a side-game to end game content.

For the standard end game content, I'd like to see something else, something more rewarding (gameplay & challenge wise, as well as drop-wise) replace the initial grind of the same pyramid levels over and over. If its done in such a way that it offers random environments and challenges, akin to maps, but without the iiq map mods, then progress through the "stable" environment would still be fun and rewarding, and would guarantee access to the more profitable, exclusive content of maps.

I also rather like the idea of generic "tokens" that silentman mentions, though of course I'd rather they be less generic.. Another form of currency items that you acquire at a progressively increasing rate as you delve deeper into "The Dungeon" which can be used directly on maps themselves (such as adding a third modifier on top of augmented magic maps, or reroll the quality of modifiers on a map without rerolling the mods themselves, or something to that effect) but can also be vendored at a set rate for various level maps. Level 75 and want to run lv67+ maps? Delve deep enough into "The Dungeon" or run the lower levels enough times. Participation should be just as rewarding, you won't be repeating the same content over and over (ie, you cannot "fall out of" end game content and be forced to grind the same, dull pyramids over and over to get back in).. And you'll have replaced the "need maps to get more maps" problem without having to trade for, or adjust the drop rates even further.

And on that note: like someone else mentioned earlier, I think it's absurd that the unlucky should have to trade for maps just to participate in end game. You're spending your hard earned currency to get more hard earned currency, when you should be saving it to roll or trade for the items you want/need.

TLDR: I like the exclusive nature of maps, it makes it all that much more exciting when you do get a higher level / harder modded map. I do not like that access to end game content relies on a lottery (rng). Increasing map drop rates will diminish the excitement of finding / warning better maps. So, my proposed solution is to implement a map-like but less profitable (no iiq mods) endless dungeon, progress through which will guarantee access to the more profitable map system.

I am amazed at people's grasp on sample sizes here. "I ran 40 maps and now I can exactly tell what the drop rates are."

Guess what? Even if you ran 40 maps without a single other map dropping it would still be possible that map drops were raised and not lowered. It isn't very likely to happen, but still.

I wouldn't make any assumption from personal data only and neither would I make any assumptions based on what other whiners on the forums say, because those tend to make their voices heard the most.

In this case you simply got to trust GGG's assessment and maybe after you ran 300, 400 or 500 maps you could give your opinion on current drop rates.

I personally like the general stance of GGG on the reward ratios being tied to the risk one chooses in a map. Right now people try to go for low risk factors on big maps to get a maximum of drops and that just seems wrong to me.

Well if you require 100% certainty and validity than we can just all refrain from feedback, since all of it is necessarily based on personal experiences.

I know I was averaging between 2 and 3 maps per map run before 0.9.12.
Now I ran five L60 maps and have gotten a single map out of it (last four were with 36, 18, 40 and 42% quantity - the 18% with +41% size was the one to drop the map btw).

While I can't tell you whether the drop rate or abundance of maps should be modified by 0.1 or 0.2, the trend is pretty clear to see.
And I don't really feel like running maps anymore if that's the level on which I'm going to burn through my stash now.