Map vendor formula: should add "2 unidentified maps of same base = +1 level map"

Why?

1. It is functionally equivalent to an increase in map drop rates for non-maptrading players. This is important because economic data from poe.trade shows that Big Economy can sustain 78 and lower maps, while a mountain of Feedback forum QQ shows that those who avoid maptrading cannot sustain maps at those levels.

Essentially, maptrading allows the 2:1 "formula" - sometimes a better ratio, rarely worse - without vendors. The echoed cry of I_NO, that content should not be gated by RNG, is nonsense in an ARPG where pretty much everything is gated by RNG... but mid-tier map content should not be gated by buying and selling maps.

2. A 2:1 vendor formula won't kill the map economy. Plenty of folks will still be out there attempting to get 1.9:1 ratios, and since the formula would be two maps of the same base we'd still have some economic interactions similar to Divination Cards, trying to buy "half a map" instead of the whole thing. As always, the economy will be there and benefit those who use it... it just will not be so overwhelming that economic participation is an insurmountable disadvantage. From 50% more efficient to 5% more efficient, doesn't matter, still more efficient; trading will be min-max as always.

3. Collecting little things for vendor formulas is fun. It will transform low maps from junk drops to something which feels relevant. The joy of loot will increase dramatically.

4. GGG will make money. When vendor formula are viable and involve some form of matching minigame, players devote stash tabs to it. More stash tabs, more GGG revenue. Making the map vendor formula 2:1 isn't just the right thing to do, it's the profitable thing to do.

Your thoughts welcome as always.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Essentially, maptrading allows the 2:1 "formula" - sometimes a better ratio, rarely worse - without vendors. The echoed cry of I_NO, that content should not be gated by RNG, is nonsense in an ARPG where pretty much everything is gated by RNG... but mid-tier map content should not be gated by buying and selling maps.

While I support the idea that the map vendor formula should be 2:1, I do not think that the claim that content should not be gated by RNG but by difficulty is nonsense. Every "normal" content in this game is gated by difficulty except for the map system.

Item drops random: Kind of "normal" in ARGPs.
Content gated by RNG: Kind of a weird idea because it forces players to play boring, non-challenging content.

An elegant solution backed up by broad-ranging, persuasive arguments. This my fellow exiles, is Scrotie at his best.

Let's all pile on here and show GGG what player consensus looks like.

"

Char1983 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Essentially, maptrading allows the 2:1 "formula" - sometimes a better ratio, rarely worse - without vendors. The echoed cry of I_NO, that content should not be gated by RNG, is nonsense in an ARPG where pretty much everything is gated by RNG... but mid-tier map content should not be gated by buying and selling maps.

While I support the idea that the map vendor formula should be 2:1, I do not think that the claim that content should not be gated by RNG but by difficulty is nonsense. Every "normal" content in this game is gated by difficulty except for the map system.

Item drops random: Kind of "normal" in ARGPs.
Content gated by RNG: Kind of a weird idea because it forces players to play boring, non-challenging content.

...where a lot of that "difficulty" is mitigated by what gear you've been lucky enough to have drop for you earlier... unless you just trade for your gear to bypass RNG completely...

At the very least, expecting GGG to actually take the "no RNG gating" argument seriously, is absurd. They won't. Period.

Heck, I had to include a section on how the map economy wouldn't be destroyed, because if GGG believes it will they would never implement my suggestion.

"

RogueMage wrote:

Let's all pile on here and show GGG what player consensus looks like.

Yes this would be appreciated, even if just for the storage space I'd save - which is exactly why it won't happen. In a game where most of the revenue comes from stash tabs, reducing inventory clutter would be counter-productive. Remember, they only just introduced DivCards, most of which serve no purpose other than cluttering up your inventory.

Best we can hope for is they'll up map drop rate again, ever so slightly.

"

RogueMage wrote:

An elegant solution backed up by broad-ranging, persuasive arguments. This my fellow exiles, is Scrotie at his best.

Let's all pile on here and show GGG what player consensus looks like.

I think that this change is incredibly drastic and one which would have far reaching implications on mapping that people here are not necessarily realizing.

To give an example, in this proposed system, it would only take 128 level 75 maps to get a single level 82. In the current system, it would take 2,187.

I suspect that this change would dramatically raise the average level of map that people are running and would more or less be completely broken with the current map drop rates, leading to the need for GGG to decrease map droprates overall to compensate.

I do not like this idea.

So what exactly is wrong with 128 lvl 75 maps being one lvl 82 map? I did the calculation as well, sounds fair to me (probably still would not do that trade though).

Why would GGG have to decrease map drops? The average map run would probably increase by half a level or a level. Would that be a bad thing?

It would mainly make things ever so slightly less random.

"

tackle70 wrote:

I think that this change is incredibly drastic and one which would have far reaching implications on mapping that people here are not necessarily realizing.

To give an example, in this proposed system, it would only take 128 level 75 maps to get a single level 82. In the current system, it would take 2,187.

I suspect that this change would dramatically raise the average level of map that people are running and would more or less be completely broken with the current map drop rates, leading to the need for GGG to decrease map droprates overall to compensate.

I do not like this idea.

If you're in Warbands I've got a better idea:
1. Sell all those 75s on poe.trade for 1 Chaos each. Going rate seems to be about 3 Chaos (for the unsold ones) so should be easy enough to unload them.
2. Buy an 82 map for 2 Ex.
3. Pocket the remaining 50ish Chaos.

In other words, what you're describing is less drastic than stuff which is happening right now.