I still think map drops are fine - boost drops and good players can do 79++ all day long

"

ampdecay wrote:

level 87 warbands, first 75 ever dropped tonight

Congrats, I happen to get my first lvl75 map this morning as well. I'm also lvl87 too :)



Other than that, nothing to cheer about since the progress is so slow and painfully expensive.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

...As I've said before, I cannot think of a single more important change to make to mapping than this: change the vendor formula so 2 maps of the same base vendor to a new base of +1 level. ...

I would still prefer if dropped map levels are more restricted to ensure that extremely low level map drops in higher level content but ScrotieMcB's suggestion is large buff that I would not mind either. I currently use lvl68 only for chisel recipe and selected few tilesets for leveling my alternate characters.

GGG is already putting weight to make low level maps drop less, I just feel they should make the adjustment much heavier on low end. I dont mind if + maps are still rare but +0 should be most common map drop. Getting -4 or more map drops is atrocious even with ScrotieMcB's change to vendor recipe.

Bosses should be restricted to -2 to +2 if GGG is true to their statement they want players to kill map bosses and be rewarded for it. Just today, I cleared Bog map with Ice Crush Marauder. I have new loot filter with sound notification when map drops. I killed the viper, hear loud sound of map dropping only to find out once excessive Ice Crash GFX faded that it was a Tropical Island map. Loot filter need appropriate QQ sound effect that could be assigned to low level maps.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As I've said before, I cannot think of a single more important change to make to mapping than this: change the vendor formula so 2 maps of the same base vendor to a new base of +1 level. This change alone would make it so low map drops wouldn't feel unrewarding anymore, but instead as a min-max opportunity. You'd collect lower maps, vendor them up, and run the vendored maps at a more appropriate level. It would be more deterministic, but deterministic the right way: not by altering drop tables, but by allowing players to properly manage their stashes in a more optimized manner. Droprates and monsters should embrace RNG, not shy from it; it is player actions which should bring order to the chaos.

And yes, my suggestion is a sustainment buff. But unlike pretty much every other suggestion, it works by changing player psychology and reactions to random drops, rather than dictating the drops themselves.

Tiering up with only 2 maps would be great, it would be worth doing, they totally don't want this, though.

They want people trading their maps to other players, running them, chisel recipe or leaving them on the ground.

They even removed map mods vending for alch shards in 2.0.0. Ironically, I pointed out in 1.3 (and several times before, but got a response in 1.3) that new affixes for maps introduced after open beta launch didn't give alch shards, only the mods that existed before then gave alch shards ranging from 1 to 6.

Dan responded saying that that didn't seem right and he'd look into it.

I waited for a fix in 2.0.0 and they fixed it all right: All map mods now give a scroll fragment.
Funny thing is, they went to the trouble, conversely, of adding alch shards to all the new jewel mods.


If it was only 2 maps per tier up someone kinda sustaining 77s could tier up 8 74s to get another 77, or 8 75s to actually get a tier higher. That is really good design as far as the aRPG goes, it's balanced, it works, it's shit design as far as economy goes as people wouldn't sell maps, and as we well know, the economy is the most important element.

"

morbo wrote:

Rares can't drop +2 anymore, ok, rares are super-easy to kill, so I can understand that form a gameplay pov.

But how about any unique monster, other than the map boss - exiles, beyond bosses, warbands - not dropping any maps at all in 2.0? Woudn't that make sense, from a gaming pov - possibly hard encounters giving you possible map drops, and not no drops at all?

How does completely disabling map drops from unique monsters make any sense (from the gamimg pov, not from economy currecy sink whatever pov)? Beyond bosses can be one of the hardest content you'll encounter in this game, yet I avoid spawning them in higher maps, cause I know I cant expect any map drops from them...

Simple.

Tempest league has a 20 exile tempest that people can chain for several maps, even further than the hour it lasts by opening several of those maps in different lab instances before it expires.

But why not just disable unique monsters dropping maps on Tempest league only, or just exiles on Tempest league only, or just the 20 exiles in that Tempest from dropping maps? God only knows, but this is GGG who can't even disable fracture despite the game breaking issues it is causing and simply won't fix pre 2.0.0 rolled elemental leech items.

There's a few words that spring to mind to describe what is the global no-maps-from-unique-monsters due to a single poorly implemented Tempest in 1 of the 4 leagues, but they would probably get me probated, I have no doubt, though, that this is the reason behind it.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Simple.

Tempest league has a 20 exile tempest that people can chain for several maps, even further than the hour it lasts by opening several of those maps in different lab instances before it expires.

Really? I'm not following the HC league this time at all, so I didn't even know that.

That explains a lot. It wouldn't be the first time GGG "balances" globally, for some specific broken mechanic they've recently added (*cough* Atziri gloves *cough*).

Is this also the reason why exiles in 2.0 seem to be nerfed? I don't find them that hard anymore. Minara, Igna, Flameblast guy... all seem to be a lot less dangerous now.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

If it was only 2 maps per tier up someone kinda sustaining 77s could tier up 8 74s to get another 77, or 8 75s to actually get a tier higher. That is really good design as far as the aRPG goes, it's balanced, it works, it's shit design as far as economy goes as people wouldn't sell maps, and as we well know, the economy is the most important element.

Hyperbole much? Or do you just not understand the economy very well?

Doing a quick price check on poe.trade, 74s can be got for 1 Chaos on Warbands, 75s for 2.5c, 76s for 5c, 77s for 7c, and 78s for 14c. So let's look at the type of effect a 2-for-1 formula would have on the economy.

In some cases, yes, you'd essentially stop people selling maps. For example, 74s probably wouldn't sell well over 1c so they'd almost always become 75s.

In some cases, you'd definitely see maps put up for sale. For example, for some reason 77s aren't worth very much more than 76s, so it wouldn't make sense to vendor up your 76s. Best to just get them indexed.

But in most cases, it's actually pretty darn close. Vendoring up your 77s into 78s at this time wouldn't gain or lose value with a 2-for-1 formula, so it would all depend on what it is you're hoping to achieve: getting currency, or getting 78 maps. Obviously if it's the latter you just vendor, but that's a big assumption. Various players would likely diversify to cover niches within the market.

Now if you're they type of player who just hates the concept of buying maps... then chances are, you currently do not buy maps. As I've said before, the economy overall is sustaining maps up until 78s or so, so if one weren't sustaining to 78 but one enjoys buying maps, then one wouldn't be making one of the numerous map sustainment QQ posts. So we're talking about going from not trading maps, to not trading maps. Not a big difference.

For those players, they're getting an option which is sometimes and sometimes not the correct call from a microeconomics point of view. We're not talking about the destruction of the mapping economy here.

Since you apparently believe (or think GGG believes) that the proper design for the economy is an extremist one, one which has to make every transaction as ridiculously social as possible lest it be "suboptimal," I take umbrage at you saying it's shit design as far as the economy is concerned. I didn't just wing this out, I looked at the map economies from previous patches before devising this suggestion. (It's a little wonkier in 2.0 versus 1.3 but I believe the core is still good.) Having taken the economy in mind devising my suggestion, no, it is not shit as far as the economy is concerned.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Simple.

Tempest league has a 20 exile tempest that people can chain for several maps, even further than the hour it lasts by opening several of those maps in different lab instances before it expires.

I'm pretty sure this decision has nothing to do with tempest.
They just don't like the fact that many people skipped map bosses previously, especially on dangerous maps, so they decided to create a huge incentive by making the map boss the only entity that can drop +2.
And it's not a bad idea, it would be better if the boss dropped a map 100% tho, with like 50% chance to have a map < current level, 20% current level, 20% +1 lvl and 10% +2 lvl or something like that. So if you kill the boss on the map, you already have 50% chance to sustain it or better.

"

Dawmz wrote:

They just don't like the fact that many people skipped map bosses previously, especially on dangerous maps, so they decided to create a huge incentive by making the map boss the only entity that can drop +2.

Except that in the current format (1/5 chance to drop any map) it's completely irrelevant.

If I skipped all the bosses I've done in 75+ maps, I'd short for maybe 4 +2 drops. You don't progress / maintain on +2 drops from boss, meaning you can still skip all the bosses you want to skip.

This boss drop chance should scale with total map quantity. Eg.: when total map quantity approaches 150%, the chance that the boss will drop a +1 map approaches 100% and +2 map say 70%. Tweaked accordingly for each map tier.

Just a flat 1/5 to drop any map, has almost zero impact on gameplay. And it's certainly not a huge incentive to do some rip-boss.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Hyperbole much? Or do you just not understand the economy very well?

Doing a quick price check on poe.trade, 74s can be got for 1 Chaos on Warbands, 75s for 2.5c, 76s for 5c, 77s for 7c, and 78s for 14c. So let's look at the type of effect a 2-for-1 formula would have on the economy.

In some cases, yes, you'd essentially stop people selling maps. For example, 74s probably wouldn't sell well over 1c so they'd almost always become 75s.

In some cases, you'd definitely see maps put up for sale. For example, for some reason 77s aren't worth very much more than 76s, so it wouldn't make sense to vendor up your 76s. Best to just get them indexed.

But in most cases, it's actually pretty darn close. Vendoring up your 77s into 78s at this time wouldn't gain or lose value with a 2-for-1 formula, so it would all depend on what it is you're hoping to achieve: getting currency, or getting 78 maps. Obviously if it's the latter you just vendor, but that's a big assumption. Various players would likely diversify to cover niches within the market.

...

I do not think Anuhart was challenging your suggestion but rather ironically assumed what might be GGG's stance on this. I believe it is fair statement to assume GGG will always look and care about things on bigger scale and will prefer balanced economy instead of individual player satisfaction.


In your assumptions, sale prices also look too conveniently set to fit 2:1 conversion rate. I still think your conclusions are sound.
However, I think you have omitted cost of rolling maps and chance that you drop map from purchased map from the calculation. These 2 items are important and will have significant impact on how much maps are offered for sale and how many are bought.

"

demon9675 wrote:

"

morinius wrote:

If you're not doing 76 maps it should not be because you haven't seen a 76 map drop in a month, it should be because your character is weak and stuff kills you. Then it gives you a goal - find a way to improve yourself and you will get there. Currently the goal is - farm more and faceroll everything until you get a luck streak and move up a map tier.

Good post. It's definitely important for us to remember this is about motivation and drive to play. Having tough content available drives me to improve my characters in order to tackle it. Without that motivation, I can only reroll so many times without just feeling bored and lost - and many players won't bother rerolling at all once they realize their main toon can't make progress due to droprates rather than difficulty.

Great posts, both of you! :)

This really says it all, and anything else is irrelevant. I find it mind boggling that something as easy to define seems so impossible to achieve.

"

Ceri wrote:

"

demon9675 wrote:

"

morinius wrote:

If you're not doing 76 maps it should not be because you haven't seen a 76 map drop in a month, it should be because your character is weak and stuff kills you. Then it gives you a goal - find a way to improve yourself and you will get there. Currently the goal is - farm more and faceroll everything until you get a luck streak and move up a map tier.

Good post. It's definitely important for us to remember this is about motivation and drive to play. Having tough content available drives me to improve my characters in order to tackle it. Without that motivation, I can only reroll so many times without just feeling bored and lost - and many players won't bother rerolling at all once they realize their main toon can't make progress due to droprates rather than difficulty.

Great posts, both of you! :)

This really says it all, and anything else is irrelevant. I find it mind boggling that something as easy to define seems so impossible to achieve.

Great posts. +1