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

I agree.

I doubt GGG will, though.

I just want to clarify about my comment: I in no way think that current map drops are fine. I think that 76-79 maps are far too punishing and that it should be noticeably easier to sustain 76-78 maps with occasional entries into 79. I think 80-82 is in a good spot.

However, I think that the proposed change is in effect attempting to kill a fly with a nuclear warhead. I don't think people here realize how significant a change it is, and I think the side effects would be disastrous.

Another way of looking at the magnitude of this change:

Relative to an 82 map, the trade in value of a 68 map in the proposed system would be nearly 300 times what it currently is.

I know you guys might look at that and think "herp derp nobody trades up from 68s to 82s". But as much as you might think it's a dirty word, you have to think of the impact this change would have on the economy, and I'm telling you: the economic implications of this change are bigger than you think, and it would work to raise the average map level players are sustaining by a HUGE amount in the long term.

I do not agree with the idea that the average sustainable level needs a significant boost. Just one or two levels uptick on the average would make things fine.

+1 for the idea



honestly even if tackle is right in his estimations, I would rather map drops were nerfed and i needed less of them to upgrade and it all turned out the same because vendoring up a few rows of maps is fun and vendoring up an entire tab of maps every other day like I do now is a bloody chore.


but really, just let people play maps, seriously, Im so sick and tired of the system, make it 2 map upvendor and let people play maps that are fitting for their characters sounds fine to be and to hell with GGGs precious content gating. That said I guess I agree with tackle70 that 2 levels uptick on the average current sustain would also probably achieve the same thing from my current experience.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

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.

thats a fair comment too, when u look at map trading is this any different? not rly, its already happening.

Personally I have never bought a map, never sold one, never will, I find the entire idea of having to trade for access to content appropriate for my character offensive. Let me play the fucking game, you GGG devs dont even play endgame, you want to trade for access to content? You dont even play content, so forgive me if i dont give a shit what you want, I dont want it, I actually play the game, you dont. Thats how I feel if I let myself be horribly blunt for a minute here.

"

Bex_GGG wrote:

Apparently we tried the 2:1 trade-in in the past and it didn't have the desired outcome.

This begs for elaboration. Perhaps from another dev. Was this some alpha thing? I would love to pour over it with the finest-tooth of combs. Or better yet, just give it one more shot.

"

Bex_GGG wrote:

They're currently discussing and considering a possible higher ratio of something like 2.5:1 for lower level maps - but they can't confirm if it's something they'd like to go ahead with at this point.

In the event of this type of solution, 6:1 for a +2 level map would make more sense than some kind of 5:2 for +1 level maps. (2.5^2=6.25, close enough.)

"

Bex_GGG wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Bex_GGG wrote:

They're currently discussing and considering a possible higher ratio of something like 2.5:1 for lower level maps - but they can't confirm if it's something they'd like to go ahead with at this point.

In the event of this type of solution, 6:1 for a +2 level map would make more sense than some kind of 5:2 for +1 level maps. (2.5^2=6.25, close enough.)

The issue with a 6:1 ratio is that you should be more likely to get progress with 6 maps than the 1 map that's two levels higher. For example, if you have 18 level 75 maps and you trade these in for three level 77 maps and luck has it that you don't receive a balancing return for these maps, that would be frustrating. The chances of playing through 18 level 75 maps and receiving nothing in return are minimal.

This is interesting to me because it implies that the intent of trading in maps is to advance map levels or otherwise get a return on your maps. I have literally NEVER used the 3:1 system this way... I have always and only used it to trade low level maps that I would never run for more usable higher level maps. I just thought that's what everyone did... it seems like a horrid idea even at 2:1 to take your highest or second highest map pool and trade it up a level for half the maps total.

Hmm.

Well, the 3:1 ratio is not getting better returns either, but the main thing that does is that you can do something useful (besides chisel recipe or trading) with the 73 maps that drop while you are running 77 maps. To me, it always was kind of a shortcut: You trade something because you do not want to run the 73 maps because honestly, that is a pretty boring thing to do. So I have in the past taken 6 73s of the same type and made them into 2 74s which I traded (with another 74) into a 75, which I then ran. It just helps to sustain the level of maps you are currently running.

The 2:1 formula would help more in that respect, and would also mean that if I was really dedicated I could save up 64 76 maps in order to be allowed to run a 82 once ;). So yeah, also from my side, it would be very interesting what the undesired outcomes of the 2:1 trading were, maybe I am just completely overlooking something, in a game as complex as this one this is easy to do. Also to somewhat better understand what the devs try to achieve with the map system, that would be very interesting ;).