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

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Oh XD Sorry, then.

I'm not a betting man but I'd wager that's what he's referring to. Otherwise the only "mirrorlul" video I can think of was from the original beta, where somebody mirrored a white rustic sash or something (maybe it was a gauntlet?)

Iirc, a witch mirrored her white starter driftwood wand and dual wielded :D

I think I heard about that but never saw the video. But we're derailing pretty hard right now.

@Tan: Sorry mate, I was ready to argue with Snorkle about things, but then you posted and I was just like argue anyways.

Now back on topic, though I don't have much to add. Bump I guess.

Thanks for handling that CHP.

There are 3 core concepts at play here, describing a relationship between a map and maps of +1 level:
1. Trade ratios
2. Map progression, if you actually run the map
3. My suggested formula

What we are discussing is the relationship between these relationships.

The relationship between trade ratios and map progression, with or without my suggestion, plays out pretty much like this:
* if trade ratio is (<2):1 this indicates that map progression is functioning well enough - map droprates relative to currency expenditure seem reasonable (aka "green" status)
* if trade ratio is (>2):1 this indicates that map progression is rather fucked and causing significant player distress (aka "red" status)
* if trade ratio is precisely 2:1, it is a bit of a judgment call but it is worth watching closely (aka "yellow" status). Notably less concerning with lower maps where currency granularity can be an issue -- no such thing as 0.55 Chisels.

The ratio between vendor formulae and trade ratios is very binary: a formula is only economically viable if it offers a better (or same) ratio than the free economy otherwise would.

Combine these, and the relationship between map progression and the suggested formula is: it would only be overused if things were already fucked up, and largely ignored when map progression is in a good place.

So regarding Bex's early comment that they tried 2:1 before and didn't like the results... they probably blamed the wrong culprit. For example, if this 2:1 formula were implemented right now, the result would be massive use of the formula on to turn 74-76 maps into 75-77 maps. And I do mean massive use. The type of scale of use which indicates a problem. However, the fault wouldn't be in the formula. It would be in droprate/sustainment of those maps.

Thus I feel I should concede, after some thought, that this suggestion would not be a replacement for evening out problematic mapdroprates. It is, however, a great Plan B for mapdrops, a "break in case of fucked droprates" emergency answer for when players need it most. The 2:1 formula should be in the game, and the more people use it,the more GGG should worry that they might have map balance off.

Edit: Lay, layman, man.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

the result would be massive use of the formula on to turn 74-76 maps into 75-77 maps. And I do mean massive use. The type of scale of use which indicates a problem

In addition to all those economehial consideration, current 74 lvl of maps consist of one of most shitty maps to run, with hard to navigate layouts and bosses lethal to most of builds. And Waste Pool, which is nice but that chaos damage...

Typically, when you can efficiently do 74s, you don;t want to do them anymore. It was the same when they were 72s, but then was "easier" to skip that all tier.

"

tmaciak wrote:

In addition to all those economehial consideration, current 74 lvl of maps consist of one of most shitty maps to run, with hard to navigate layouts and bosses lethal to most of builds. And Waste Pool, which is nice but that chaos damage...

Typically, when you can efficiently do 74s, you don;t want to do them anymore. It was the same when they were 72s, but then was "easier" to skip that all tier.

Yes exactly. 74s are an obstacle (layouts, native mob combo, hard bosses), that once you over come it, you should be already running 75s+.

Basically 74s are harder than 75s and that should be also looked at from the level design, not just "numbers tweaking" pov.

74 map pool is 1 of the map levels wich actually has decent bosses
they are harder but pretty much any build can do them
the only 1 that might cause real problems is the weaver boss

ive said it before in other threads , these bosses aren't to hard
others bosses are too weak.

i do agree about the layout of some of them being annoying

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Tanakeah wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

And I've seen a streamer use a Mirror to get an extra Chromatic item, then vendor it for a Chromatic. But I'm not so easily distracted that I allow a ringmaster to make me believe poe.trade is anything other than a powerful force in the game.

Are you by chance talking about ZiggyD, who got a Mirror from someone while playing on the BETA version of 2.0 where everything was getting wiped and nothing was being kept into the actual game?

The point was that streamers have a unique advantage. They market and benefit from their personality, something regular players don't do, and therefore they get to do things just for show.

The point was that "because a streamer did it" is a bad argument, because unless you also have celebrity, their motivators differ from a regular player's.

no, basically, etup does dont do that for show, etup is not someone who does wasteful things normal players dont do because he is a 'celebrity' or whatever you want to call it. Its not a bad arguement, its a far better argument than "im right because of my interpretation of poexyz rates". The idea that no one would use 2:1 vendor for high level maps is completely absurd imo.

The reason he thinks this is because he actually has very little experience in this game and practically no experience of high level play at all, he simply doesnt know what hes talking about in this instance, and neither do you.

You're right, Snorkle. I do not have multiple level 100 characters. However:
1. I am quite good at understanding how players will use tradeable objects (predicted exactly how people would use Eternals before they were released).
2. TheAnuhart does, and he actually agrees with me.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You're right, Snorkle. I do not have multiple level 100 characters. However:
1. I am quite good at understanding how players will use tradeable objects (predicted exactly how people would use Eternals before they were released).
2. TheAnuhart does, and he actually agrees with me.

I dont see where anuhart is agreeing with you on high level mappers never using 2:1.

You said alchs will never be 3:1, and theyre already 4:1

you said no one would craft for profit without eternals, and people do craft for profit without eternals.

Youre basically in guessing land, guessing what people like me have spent 1000s and 1000s of hours doing, I actually do it.


basically you have no idea how high level mappers act if you think they wont use a 2:1 recipe on high level maps, and ur basing this off a trade value on xyz that is in turn based off the 3:1 value and will change if they made it 2:1...

If you add every single hour uve played this game and every single hour canhas has played the game together its less time than Ive spent mapping at high levels, something I dont think either of you have ever done, and ur gonna tell me how high level mappers will interact with systems based off a price that will change if your idea got implemented?

You think ur quite the guy who knows his shit about this game, and youre not mate, basically, no harm intended but you are basically standing on the side lines guessing what those of us who play will do. Fair play, guess away, but thats what it is, an ill informed guess.