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

a side note about 'economy says that maps are sustainable':

ever heard of price fixing? have you tried to BUY these maps? it might be so that if you try the 'seller' will not sell and when asked 'why' will have a nice answer 'cannot really tell'.

but he is ready to buy similar maps for the price he had just fixed

works for any limited-availability goods

"

Char1983 wrote:

The current design of the game just punishes casual, yet dedicated players. That was not the case in 1.3.

Casual =/= dedicated. I'm agreeing with you, but I would categorize the player tiers differently: casual, dedicated, and no-lifer. Right now, the game punishes both casual and dedicated players. It really should only punish casuals, and simply offer higher rewards for no-lifers rather than making no-lifing mandatory in order to even play the toughest content.

GGG should aim their revenue strategy at the dedicated tier, and ignore the no-lifer tier's strawman arguments that dedicated players are the same as casual players and want to ruin the game by making it too easy. Many no-lifers do not have a normal, sane perspective on difficulty or time requirements (this is not true of all of them, and I've been in the no-lifer group from time to time). Instead, they want PoE to stretch ahead of them endlessly no matter how much time they put in so they can keep progressing forever. No videogame works that way, nor should it.

At a certain point, GGG needs to recognize that if a player plays 16 hours a day the result is they will be extremely powerful and likely get close to level 100. Good for them; they deserve it. Don't balance around them.

"

sidtherat wrote:

a side note about 'economy says that maps are sustainable':

ever heard of price fixing? have you tried to BUY these maps? it might be so that if you try the 'seller' will not sell and when asked 'why' will have a nice answer 'cannot really tell'.

but he is ready to buy similar maps for the price he had just fixed

works for any limited-availability goods

Again, I do not believe a small number of available items (such as with 82 maps) says there is a real surplus. With small quantities like that you can have all kinds of things going on. But when you have 99+ items available from scores of sellers (as with 78 maps and lower), there is too much competition within the marketplace, you know stuff like price fixing or abnormally good luck aren't factors.

Really what it looks like is that players will eventually be sustaining up to 80, and not able to sustain 81 or 82. Which is essentially what GGG said they wanted.

But the really strange thing is, even with 99+ availability, people are still grasping for any reason to evade the truth... also, myopically focused on 81+ maps when their actual complaints involve maps 79 and below...

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

But when you have 99+ items available from scores of sellers (as with 78 maps and lower), there is too much competition within the marketplace, you know stuff like price fixing or abnormally good luck aren't factors.

Oh my, look what else is "sustainable"...

http://poe.trade/search/atokikitomakak

I do not see anyone sustaining 80+ maps, and definitely noone doing that without being in a party.

It would be very helpful if GGG could at least give some kind of comment on this, and at least tell us what the chances for map drops are and how they can be influenced. If in fact party play increases the chances for maps to drop, then I am basically out.

I might run a science project on this. Just did some math, running 20 maps in a 4-person party and 20 maps alone, full-clearing them would probably be able to answer this question on a 2-sigma to 3-sigma significance level.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

sidtherat wrote:

a side note about 'economy says that maps are sustainable':

ever heard of price fixing? have you tried to BUY these maps? it might be so that if you try the 'seller' will not sell and when asked 'why' will have a nice answer 'cannot really tell'.

but he is ready to buy similar maps for the price he had just fixed

works for any limited-availability goods

Again, I do not believe a small number of available items (such as with 82 maps) says there is a real surplus. With small quantities like that you can have all kinds of things going on. But when you have 99+ items available from scores of sellers (as with 78 maps and lower), there is too much competition within the marketplace, you know stuff like price fixing or abnormally good luck aren't factors.

Really what it looks like is that players will eventually be sustaining up to 80, and not able to sustain 81 or 82. Which is essentially what GGG said they wanted.

But the really strange thing is, even with 99+ availability, people are still grasping for any reason to evade the truth... also, myopically focused on 81+ maps when their actual complaints involve maps 79 and below...

and what is your PERSONAL experience of maintaining maps? sorry to put it bluntly - your characters suggest you have little to no mid+ map experience.. characters are so glassy that even early 70 should be lethal to them

so what is your PERSONAL (not anecdotal, not your friends' expierience, not search results) experience on subject matter?

"

Char1983 wrote:

Content that is 16 levels below my character level an gives 20% XP is appropriate? That is an interesting concept.

So at which level of character and no-life-ness should I be allowed to play level 80+ maps?

20% Exp is fine once you start pushing 90+. Your idea of map level = character level implying appropriate content is arbitrary as well as naive. A L100 player can easily die in a L70 zone (Atziri). Additional passives after 80-90 don't increase character power significantly. In fact the power growth is much less than linear for most builds. Why would it make sense to fight mobs that scale in power linearly per map level? It wouldn't. L90 mobs would probably one-shot most L90 characters. My friends and I are content to do 77-79 maps even with L95 characters. Sliqs (first L100 in Warbands) was fine doing 79-80 maps when he was L99. The fact that you just can't stand doing L75-77 maps at 91 just shows your lack of experience leveling into the mid 90s.

"

And of course I can't. Neither can you. Can you run a blood magic no regen map with desecrated ground, 300% increased monster damage as lightning / cold / fire, -15% max resists and monsters cannot be cursed with each and every of your 90+ characters? I do not think there is a single character in the game that could run each and every single weirdo combination of affixes in each and every 78 map, so I am fine with not being able to do that in level 77s. I can run most combinations.

I run everything except blood magic. I avoid -max + elem, but I could run them if I really wanted to. I've had a decent amount of 81-82 drops in corrupt 120%+ maps.

"

Char1983 wrote:

Having to spend stupid amounts of currency (maybe 10 chaos per map for rolling, 10 chaos for Zana mod per map) to be able to play maps only works if you trade, and mostly also requires to play in a mapping party. Party play with more than 3 person parties is just no fun for me, partially because the of the rediculous amounts of graphical effects that that produces. Trading is not fun either.

There's so much wrong with your attitude. You refuse to trade, you refuse to party, you refuse to spend currency on maps, and you don't want to run vaal'd maps. Yet you want to be given the same amount of power as all the players who take advantage of all the tools they have to progress. So you're suggesting that the truly dedicated players should just be hit with a wall where they can't progress any faster than "dedicated casuals"? Maybe you should go play torchlight 2 or Skyrim then...

"

I_NO wrote:

"

They are absolutely NOT okay.

Content should be GATED by difficulty NOT RNG, Watch everyone quote this post.

:D

"

I_NO wrote:

"

They are absolutely NOT okay.

Content should be GATED by difficulty NOT RNG and/or currency that other people/bots find, Watch everyone quote this post.

"

nait2k4 wrote:

So, I think we've reached an agreement.

Current map drop rates ARE fine, if you have a solid base to start from, a decent currency collection to invest, have a build that is not hard countered by many map mods, and you don't suffer too many bad RNG streaks.

No, I 100% disagree with that. The top three rows of the first picture was entirely 78's that I had accrued before 2.0.0, all of which I rolled to the best of my ability sparing no chaos, some of them even corrupted to 150+%. I have an aegis tank capable of any and all map mods that I play if I roll a particularly hard map. I kill every boss. Yet what remains is my reward for all that effort. Below that is a sample of some of the maps I've been running.



Both 79's were ambushed as well. Now how the fuck can anybody tell me I haven't been rolling my maps well enough?

And Crackmonsta is absolutely lying about his drops. There's just no fucking way he got 15 +1's from 18 maps, especially considering that I've gotten THREE +1's from running way more 78's than he ran 77's. What a fucking load of bullshit.


Also

"

I_NO wrote:

They are absolutely NOT okay.

Content should be GATED by difficulty NOT RNG, Watch everyone quote this post.