I Can't Do This Again

Agree, current maps are bullshit.
I've been doing chisel+alch maps since lvl 72 and there seems to be a barrier at 74, its harder to get 74 maps on 74 compared to running 73s, not to mention the few instances that you get into a 75 doesn't matter if you have 115 quantity, you can clear the map get a lvl 72 and consider yourself lucky.

I'm sitting at 72-73 in warbands with occasional 74. I think the point where it gets hard to progress in map pyramid is set too low. I mean common, 73 map is just 6th tier of pyramid, with 9 tiers to go... 76-77 should be the point where it gets harder to progress with maps.

Max XP penalty is also ridiculous, make it lesser and increase the amount of xp needed in high levels, it would feel better if you knew you are getting something, tho it would take same amount of time to hit 100.

Gating more challenging content with RNG also makes game boring. I mean common, 72-73 is piece of cake once you get some gear.

Some tuning in map drops would be appreciated.

This has had me getting rather wary of getting back into mapping; I'd just been going through the acts in Warbands, and then re-doing Act IV on my existing Standard characters.

Though perhaps I might actually give it a try soon, if anything, to record data to find out precisely how bad the situation is. I know that, before, when frustrated I'd started keeping a log of EVERY SINGLE MAP I was running from levels 86-91; this wound up being a couple hundred; I'd recorded the type, the total quantity bonus, (packsize/magic/rare bonus if applicable) and the results: EXP gained, the quantities/levels of maps found, and the occurrence of masters, Arcanist/Carto boxes, and uniques.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

2. The expected value of level 82 maps found in an average five-affix 82 map should be precisely 1 (counting only map drops + vendor formula).
<snip>
There. The exact best droprate for maps. Wasn't that hard to determine.

Yeah, this is so commonsense I've been baffled a bit that, from what I've seen (including pre-2.0) that GGG has never even really had this go through their heads. It seems all their targets and goals are FAR more nebulous and off-point than that.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

3. Balance affixes so no two affix (prefix+suffix) combo gives more reward than the average of four totally random affixes. Because Regal map crafting of the same prefix+suffix combo every time is bullshit, and at best should get an expected return of 1.

Well, I do have ONE contrast to that... Specifically, that some mods are outright weak in terms of their benefit. However, proper balance should likely come that ALL high-bonus mods should be ones that are "hated" and NOT easy.

The biggest cancer that mapping suffered from was that you were punished in taking any strategy BESIDES "alt until you get packsize, then regal."

GGG took a good first step so far; eliminating packsize as a discrete mod had to be done EVERY bit as much as their removal of "larger map" mods. Their follow-up to make packsize a benefit of some specific mods was a good idea; however, it probably still needs some better balance. In fact, it likely will require CONTINUOUS balance: peoples' builds will evolve, and try to trivialize as much valuable content as possible.

In the end, repeat balance should be used to ensure that mod-selection remains every bit a real choice of risk-vs-reward; that's something that PoE, especially pre-2.0, has SORELY lacked; you basically always took "the easy route" and just sped through otherwise you were a scrub. A few more specific concepts that, RIGHT NOW, seem good:

• Synergistic Affixes: very important; good balance of risk-reward is impossible without this. Some mod combos are FAR more dangerous than just the face-value sum of the two combined. In most cases, these should be reflected by adding +packsize bonuses, and perhaps be the MAIN source of them:
  • Exposure + Elemental damage - No-brainer. For most builds, (those without physical mitigation) the effective extra damage here is TRIVIAL. "Exposure" ruins this, because the former mod is balanced around the assumption all endgame chars are 3x75%. So +100% extra fire damage, for most, is the equivalent of +25% damage... But exposure makes that a 40-50% bump. For armored melee characters who normally HAVE to facetank physical, this stings even harder.
  • Double Reflect: an easy one that's overlooked. Granted, the overall synergy bonus is often overstated; a good number of builds, even post-leech-nerf, can still shrug this off easily. (my stunner tank does this well) Still, again, a better reward needs to be there for those that sacrifice to be more survivable, and/or just player more cautious and slow.
• Reflect: elemental reflect should have a higher reward; physical reflect is easily avoided by a lot of builds, but everyone deals at least some elemental reflect. Also, double-reflect should be higher than the sum of the two parts. (see "synergistic affixes")
• Elemental Weakness: for a curse, this is probably the least-significant. Easily mitigated with some gem adjustment, (an aura is an easy sacrifice against making a free high-value mod) and that assumes you didn't ALREADY have beyond-capped resists. Packsize bonus should be REMOVED from this.
• Fleet: the most valuable prefix can vary inconsistently; sometimes it's "free quantity," while other unfortunate things can result in unsurvivable packs. This needs to be addressed. Some of it is synergy with other mods (like Temporal Chains) but a lot is synergy with the MONSTERS themselves; a blue pack of Swift or of Fervor mobs is suddenly a LOT more dangerous. Make them movement-skill ones like Croaking Chimerals and it suddenly becomes a quick ticket to standard/-10% EXP for most. Balance likely will have to work on a monster level.
• Ground effects: In most maps, burning ground is mild-but-free quantity. However, in tight indoor maps without much room to maneuver (think Waste Pool) these can be extra-troublesome. Either the danger should be mitigated partly in these maps (less covered area) or the reward should be bumped. (these maps provide more)

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Making maps tolerable in 3 easy steps

1. Change formula so two maps of same type vendor for map of +1 level (instead of three of same type). Right now if you run a map and get three maps, a -2 level and two -3s, you just got kicked in the dick by RNGesus, unless you trade them off, which can be annoying. If the formula was improved, you'd be halfway to a map of the same level.

2. The expected value of level 82 maps found in an average five-affix 82 map should be precisely 1 (counting only map drops + vendor formula). By "average five-affix" I mean roller has absolutely no caring which affixes show up, they just Alch a map and then if it has only 4 affixes they Chaos it until it didn't have only 4 affixes anymore. (Average 1 Alch + 1.5 Chaos.)

What this does is incentivize 6-affix maps in the least punishing way possible. If the typical 5-affix has expected return of 1, then sustaining maps that way is a lot like flipping a fair coin over and over and hoping the amount of heads is equal or greater than the number of tails. Long-term you'd expect equality, but you'd also expect a few dips where tails temporarily exceed heads. Players would go for the sixth affix to better assure no such droughts happen.

There. The exact best droprate for maps. Wasn't that hard to determine.

3. Balance affixes so no two affix (prefix+suffix) combo gives more reward than the average of four totally random affixes. Because Regal map crafting of the same prefix+suffix combo every time is bullshit, and at best should get an expected return of 1.

Agreed! 1 and 2 are very good ideas that GGG should consider. Wouldn't make mapping or leveling "too easy" but would provide some kind of reward for taking risks.

@ACGIFT: the things affixes do is kinda fucked as well, but that's an advanced class compared to the remedial balancing GGG has yet to perform on its map system.

I'm guessing the issue is that even with access to loot tables, etc that GGG haven't mathed out the expected return of maps, and when they adjust drop rates they're just taking shots in the dark. "Too easy, better nerf," no idea how much... then next league, "too hard, better buff," no idea how much.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'm guessing the issue is that even with access to loot tables, etc that GGG haven't mathed out the expected return of maps, and when they adjust drop rates they're just taking shots in the dark. "Too easy, better nerf," no idea how much... then next league, "too hard, better buff," no idea how much.

I actually think that this is what the cause is in a lot of cases here. While I don't necessarily believe the accusations that GGG bases all their balance changes on just "simply repeat whatever popular streamers told them," it's pretty clear that they don't have strong tools to calculate the outright balance of the game.

A number of fans have asserted that they have powerful data-gathering tools, but I've seen no detectable evidence that they've got ANY form of automated data collection that could resemble what a lot of other big online games use; I mean, they JUST got around to an "EXP per hour" calculator, as horrifically simple as that is.

Maps have been my favourite thing in this game - until now.

Since awakening launch I've been playing mostly on warbands. I've been alching maps after the first mapping day because i didn't find maps when transmuting/alting. Alching yields more orbs and such, but cannot say the same about maps. I'm killing the bosses and full clearing (or close to, less than 5 remaining), but bosses drop air most of the time. I get even maybe half of the time, +1 maybe once in 5-8 maps, +2 maybe once in 15 maps. Only things that keep piling up are 68s, and I've vendored those for 69s. I'm level 82 and can hardly sustain 70 maps. Does GGG expect me to chisel+alch+vaal+onslaught 70s, or what's going on... My sample size is not that huge so it might be just bad luck, but if things continue like this i might just as well take a break until next league and wait for GGG to do something after receiving enough feedback.

agreed, i can not for my life figure out what they are thinking, lack of content is my #1 reason for getting off poe and doing something else.

I completely agree with your entire post. You should NEVER get less than an equal level map back, especially not at these rates.

What if they keep drop rates the same, but the boss at the end of the map is guaranteed to drop a same-level map as the one you're currently running? That way, at the very least, if you clear a 78 you will get another 78. If you can't do the boss, you don't get the map.

I would rather it be too easy to get maps than too hard. What's the harm in letting everyone run top level maps? They should be challenging because the maps themselves are rough, not because you need to spend a ton of money just to enter a single one, and then you may or may not even get that return back.

I mean, it's very easy to tell that maps are too difficult to get. When they cost 20c each, there's a problem.

"

Ixoziel wrote:

I completely agree with your entire post. You should NEVER get less than an equal level map back, especially not at these rates.

What if they keep drop rates the same, but the boss at the end of the map is guaranteed to drop a same-level map as the one you're currently running?

I disagree. Players should have to roll maps well for sustainment. And it shouldn't be about guarantees, but about a reasonable rate of return balanced out by consistent play.

Even under my idea of what maps should be like, what happened to OP could happen. It would be about a 1 in 3400 experience (I did maths), but possible.