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

" MatrixFactor wrote: tinko: I checked your profile. You're playing non-crit 1h cyclone with something like 20k armor, and 200% life. Meanwhile you're complaining about DPS. Go 2h or go crit or put on an abyssus. Or play CoC (bow, cyclone, wand), bow (tshot, split arrow, poison arrow), summoner (SRS, hybrid), melee (cyclone, reave, ice crash, facebreaker). All of these builds can clear faster on a 5L than your tank. And you actually have good gear, so no idea what the point about "expensive" builds is. Meanwhile I'm complaining about DPS? Where was that? I'm perfectly fine with my DPS. I am playing one of those melee "builds" you've listed. Of course I can drop some defenses and invest in DPS to further improve my clear speed, however, my leveling would suffer and I don't like dying. Btw, half of my gear is self found and the rest didn't cost more than 2 ex. To sustain the current survivability it means a lot more money to be spent on gear. Thanks for the advice though, even though you've completely missed the point and you've misread something I wrote and now this is just pointless. Also what tackle wrote. And as for your: "Apex of Sacrifice costs 8c on Warbands, and a 79 map costs 14-16c. So if you really want difficult content why not just run apex of sacrifice? Or vaal your 75s. You'll get temp chains, -max, +elem damage eventually. How is that not going to be harder than a 79 that you roll with chaos to your own specifications?" This is a proof of what I've said earlier, none of the guys like you have actually read and understood the complaints "against" the map system.	Posted by tinko92 on Aug 6, 2015, 8:26:38 PM Quote this Post
" PolarisOrbit wrote: The question is, how does GGG send the signal that something is supposed to be rare, when they do have an activity that they only want players to participate in rarely? Apparently by halving the XP floor in available content. Casually casual.	Posted by TheAnuhart on Aug 6, 2015, 8:27:50 PM Quote this Post
I'd love having zana maps on a higher level. Maybe even a unique zana +level to map roll so that at least sometimes people without GG currency can taste some of that content. It's kinda awkward when you roll a 74 zana <.<.	Posted by Bananaplasm on Aug 6, 2015, 8:31:58 PM Quote this Post
" PolarisOrbit wrote: I think there's a communication issue between GGG and the players. It seems that players see the map pool goes up to L80 and expects to farm however high the map pool goes, but GGG's intent with the highest tier was not to increase how far players could farm, but instead something else. This is only an extrapolation from the drop rates, nothing else in the game indicates GGG's intention in such a way. Maybe if GGG gave these maps some tells that they are different- such as a different icon/text color, inventory size, and different naming scheme- then it would be clearer that players are supposed to think of them differently (specifically, as being less farmable than the lower maps). If players were expecting L81 maps to be a rare activity then the lack of ability to constantly run them at that level would not be a problem. The question is, how does GGG send the signal that something is supposed to be rare, when they do have an activity that they only want players to participate in rarely? Stop making up arguments for you to respond to. Nobody is saying they should be able to endlessly farm lvl 80+ maps. In the patch notes they said the higher maps wouldn't be sustainable, so I can guarantee you that nobody is actually pushing the argument you're putting into people's mouths. People want the bar of sustainability moved from 74's to 77's and 78's like they said would be possible. And no, rolling every map to a base of 130% and then throwing zana mods and sac frags in (even uber frags in my case) is not sustainable. IGN: WeenieHuttSenior US East	Posted by Caustic2 on Aug 6, 2015, 9:17:41 PM Quote this Post
" MatrixFactor wrote: Do you really not understand the difference between describing populations and individuals? Even though it wouldn't benefit you personally, giving easier access to higher levels would benefit the population as a whole... Of course I do. I was just pissed (and in a hurry), sorry about that. However, let me summarize your points: - Players should not be allowed to play high content if they are not good enough and rolling maps or do not have enough currency (5-20 chaos per map) to sink into maps, even if their characters would be able to run it - I am already rich and richness should be rewarded by more richness My point, summarized: - I want to have fun and explore content, facing content that is actually challenging for my character Seems like a lot of people feel the same way I do. BTW I did Atziri (on a not very Atziri-kill-friendly build) the other day. Happy about it, now up to new challenges, the maps are waiting.... oh wait. Remove Horticrafting station storage limit.	Posted by Char1983 on Aug 6, 2015, 9:17:51 PM Quote this Post
" Caustic2 wrote: " PolarisOrbit wrote: I think there's a communication issue between GGG and the players. It seems that players see the map pool goes up to L80 and expects to farm however high the map pool goes, but GGG's intent with the highest tier was not to increase how far players could farm, but instead something else. This is only an extrapolation from the drop rates, nothing else in the game indicates GGG's intention in such a way. Maybe if GGG gave these maps some tells that they are different- such as a different icon/text color, inventory size, and different naming scheme- then it would be clearer that players are supposed to think of them differently (specifically, as being less farmable than the lower maps). If players were expecting L81 maps to be a rare activity then the lack of ability to constantly run them at that level would not be a problem. The question is, how does GGG send the signal that something is supposed to be rare, when they do have an activity that they only want players to participate in rarely? Stop making up arguments for you to respond to. Nobody is saying they should be able to endlessly farm lvl 80+ maps. In the patch notes they said the higher maps wouldn't be sustainable, so I can guarantee you that nobody is actually pushing the argument you're putting into people's mouths. People want the bar of sustainability moved from 74's to 77's and 78's like they said would be possible. And no, rolling every map to a base of 130% and then throwing zana mods and sac frags in (even uber frags in my case) is not sustainable. The number is immaterial, you can subtract all numbers in my post by 2, or 10, or whatever number you want so that I'm not "making up arguments." I could have said L68 maps and the point would have remained the same- a discrepency between droprates and player expectations indicates a failure by GGG to communicate their intent. I just picked a high number because it looks weird if I pick a number that's too low (L68); picking a number that's too high (L80) doesn't have that problem. And everyone in the topic seems to say a slightly different number on what's sustainable, so I picked a number that was above everyone, so that it applies to all. After all, if you can't sustain L77 then you obviously can't sustain L80 either.	Posted by PolarisOrbit on Aug 6, 2015, 9:32:00 PM Quote this Post
" tinko92 wrote: This is a proof of what I've said earlier, none of the guys like you have actually read and understood the complaints "against" the map system. I'm mainly responding to the argument by Char1983 that he wants to play higher maps because they pose "challenging" content. My point is that higher maps aren't really more challenging, and that they should be thought of as a loot/experience luxury. I.e. you can farm loot in lower maps and get experience in them too, but if you can afford to pay a premium, you get rewarded. Therefore my interpretation of "high map drops are too low" is people saying they want better loot / easier experience. I'd rather see people have to develop better builds, and find cool ways to play against the new map mods than see GGG give away higher maps. I like the changes they've made with 2.0, because pushing into the mid 90s is harder than before (takes more knowledge), but once you get it right you are rewarded (I leveled 93-94 much faster in 2.0 than in 1.3). " Char1983 wrote: - Players should not be allowed to play high content if they are not good enough and rolling maps or do not have enough currency (5-20 chaos per map) to sink into maps, even if their characters would be able to run it - I am already rich and richness should be rewarded by more richness About rolling: 75-79 are just 3chis + 1 alc + 1 vaal => 3c in Warbands per map. And these days you can buy 75s for 2.5c so you don't even have to chis or vaal those. Yeah I would spend more on 81s and 82s (3chis + 3sac + 7c + 8c zana), but that's because those maps sell for 1-1.5ex. About richness: I'm doing all of this in Warbands where everyone started at the same point 4 weeks ago. My guild is semi-casual, so there wasn't a lot of team play or group pooling involved either. Plenty of people I interact with are pushing 95+ in Warbands, and there aren't even frequent rotations or fee-based groups in WB, so that means they're doing a lot of the leveling solo. But yeah, I do want to get rewarded for knowing how to build my character, and how to approach map mods. All my builds /view-thread/1430399 T14 'real' clearspeed challenge /1642265 Last edited by MatrixFactor on Aug 6, 2015, 10:27:01 PM	Posted by MatrixFactor on Aug 6, 2015, 10:26:07 PM Quote this Post
" MatrixFactor wrote: " tinko92 wrote: This is a proof of what I've said earlier, none of the guys like you have actually read and understood the complaints "against" the map system. I'm mainly responding to the argument by Char1983 that he wants to play higher maps because they pose "challenging" content. My point is that higher maps aren't really more challenging, and that they should be thought of as a loot/experience luxury. I.e. you can farm loot in lower maps and get experience in them too, but if you can afford to pay a premium, you get rewarded. Therefore my interpretation of "high map drops are too low" is people saying they want better loot / easier experience. I'd rather see people have to develop better builds, and find cool ways to play against the new map mods than see GGG give away higher maps. I like the changes they've made with 2.0, because pushing into the mid 90s is harder than before (takes more knowledge), but once you get it right you are rewarded (I leveled 93-94 much faster in 2.0 than in 1.3). " Char1983 wrote: - Players should not be allowed to play high content if they are not good enough and rolling maps or do not have enough currency (5-20 chaos per map) to sink into maps, even if their characters would be able to run it - I am already rich and richness should be rewarded by more richness About rolling: 75-79 are just 3chis + 1 alc + 1 vaal => 3c in Warbands per map. And these days you can buy 75s for 2.5c so you don't even have to chis or vaal those. Yeah I would spend more on 81s and 82s (3chis + 3sac + 7c + 8c zana), but that's because those maps sell for 1-1.5ex. About richness: I'm doing all of this in Warbands where everyone started at the same point 4 weeks ago. My guild is semi-casual, so there wasn't a lot of team play or group pooling involved either. Plenty of people I interact with are pushing 95+ in Warbands, and there aren't even frequent rotations or fee-based groups in WB, so that means they're doing a lot of the leveling solo. But yeah, I do want to get rewarded for knowing how to build my character, and how to approach map mods. I agree, I am rolling my maps like that and what I also did was making sure the pool I ran was big enough. Not running 75 before I had 20 and than not run 76 before I had 20. I got good pool of maps and I never ran out. I also trade all others up until 74. With lower map level giving more xp 89 has been a breeze. No idea what it be after 90 but I fail to see what the problem is with maps. I also like to add I solo play and so does my wife. She has her own pool and has a good pool also.	Posted by roetetoet on Aug 6, 2015, 10:37:28 PM Quote this Post
The problem is that to the normal player 80+ maps are unaccessible. And I still fail to see why you would gate content behind RNG. I really do not get the point. Again, it is not about leveling. Besides, you are aware of the fact that it makes zero difference in which order you run your maps, right? So whether you first build a pool or not, it makes no difference whatsoever. I am getting severely bored running 75s. Remove Horticrafting station storage limit. Last edited by Char1983 on Aug 7, 2015, 1:30:29 AM	Posted by Char1983 on Aug 7, 2015, 1:30:05 AM Quote this Post
Well i am glad you all are still having fun. @PolarisOrbit I also think a lot of it is due to expectation. And ggg's most usual stance is that they just add balance to their liking, players must then learn what is possible ad adjust their expectations accordingly - meaning they don't invest much time in easing on changes to people - they just do them. And shifting around the endgame so much leads to ruckus, and we all know ppl want a constant powercreep, any "step back" and all the fun is "draining", "time to quit", "no more money to ggg" and bla bla bla. So on and so forth.. .. OH by the way guys something to consider.. as your rolls become better, zana mod means less and less, but it might be worth to consider adding 4 extra strongboxes with ambush mod on 80+ maps that are already GG rolled. Chance for cartos, good amount of monsters as well, other good loot too. Especially worth it on maps where the bosses are too hard on a risky map - like village ruin. I am the light of the morning and the shadow on the wall, I am nothing and I am all. Last edited by Crackmonster on Aug 7, 2015, 2:05:04 AM	Posted by Crackmonster on Aug 7, 2015, 2:03:01 AM Quote this Post