Map vendor formula: should add "2 unidentified maps of same base = +1 level map"
" The issue here is the assumption that 18 level XX maps would be played through. This is generally not true for lower level maps. Players will trade in 18 level 73 maps for 3 75's because they really don't want to run 73s (too easy/boring). Heck even 75's are easy/boring. I still don't understand why you're using RNG/currency instead of difficulty to gate content. If a player is running 76 maps instead of 81, the only reason for that should be the player chose to run 76s for enjoyment, perhaps because they find 81 too difficult or perhaps because they simply prefer those map bases. I fail to understand how you can view forcing players to run maps that are too low level for them, which they find boring/easy, a desirable endgame. If I had my way I'd make all the map bases scalable, so players can enjoy all of the environments at a zone level that stimulates them. If you want to retain some sort of new player progression system, this could be an unlockable option (beat the progression first, then unlock access to all the map bases and user-set scaling). It would really breath some life (and variability) into the endgame for longtime vets. Never underestimate what the mod community can do for PoE if you sell an offline client.
| |
|
I would add also, a slightly more efficient recipe for converting low and lowest level maps to higher levels. This recipe would be slightly more efficient than 2^3 matching sets for +3 levels, as once lowest level maps pass a certain threshold in difference of level, certainly 3^n, but also 2^n would still require the accumulation of far too many otherwise irrelevant pieces to be of use.
The important thing to address here, is that at some point, whole portions of potential content become irrelevant. This lends to the sense of loss of progression with players, which GGG has tried time and again to address, but they have never attempted to make that content less irrelevant. E.g., An additional recipe that allowed ~10x maps of any combination levels and tile-sets to be exchanged for one map of lowest-level +3 and of random tile-set. There are more maps used than Scrotie's suggestion, but it reduces the burden of having to collect dozens, if not hundreds, of low level maps to complete matching sets. I would predict that Scrotie's would be most useful for utilizing maps of ~2-3 levels less than that being run (or attempted to run), while mine would be useful for maps ~3-4 levels less and beyond. At least some portion of the player-base would feel less discouraged by finding lower-leveled drops than desired, if they had a reasonable expectation that those drops represented some progress. In my example, any ten 68's and 69's could be converted to a level 71 map, which could represent 10% progress (per drop) towards a piece to use in Scrotie's recipe. Additionally, I would like to see the 3^n recipe still used, but instead of upgrading to a new tile-set n levels higher, it would raise the level of the tile-set used for the recipe. Not going to expand on that; it's just a way to expand potential higher level content by using a less-efficient recipe to occasionally turn favorable tile-sets into higher levels. E.g., allowing Graveyard to be run at (up to) level 82 by collecting (up to) 59,049 of them ;) Devolving Wilds Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” Last edited by CanHasPants on Aug 11, 2015, 2:30:19 PM
|
|
" Does that mean Happiness was not the desired outcome? Because It would make me pretty happy. Anarchy/Onslaught T shirt
Domination/Nemesis T shirt Tempest/War Bands T shirt | |
|
To address Bex's comments, I don't use the map recipe to get higher level maps, I tend to use it to increase my pool of at level maps. Say I'm running 75s I don't make a 76 out of the ones I have, I make more 75s out of what I get that's lower level. Dropping maps that are much lower level than the maps your playing is extremely frustrating, and I can only assume I'm not meant to play those maps, due to the exp penalty mechanics, but the recipe is a way t mitigate it.
Personally I think the vendor recipe was fine, but the 2.0 reduction in the abundance of 75+ maps, due to lack of +2 maps, seemingly lowered drop rates, and a reduction to the level of maps Zana provides, makes sustaining 75-78 maps much harder, which was claimed were meant to be sustainable, and the ability to more easily upgrade those lower level maps would make sustaining an at level map pol much less frustrating. Additionally there are a lot of map bosses who's difficulty are way out of sync with the map level, and the encouragement to fight them. The difficulty of a map often has much less to do with the level of a map, and much more to do with the native monsters, and the bosses. Take for example dungeon and colonnade, new and improved Brutus is much scarier than Kole, but colonnade is a much higher level map, or take dessert, and pit, those boss fights are a pain in the ass at best, and awful at worst, but maps like strand, or bazaar have bosses that are basically no problem. This makes the +2 thing really strange, because bosses in +2 maps may be extremely easy compared to the maps you're on, and they may also not nativly has some extremely awful mobs like chimerals, or the stygian guys. The main increase in difficulty I see in most maps is what mods I roll on them, and the biggest increase I see is when I decide to start running rare instead of magic maps. | |
|
Yes, the 3:1 WAS fine, but now not so much except with lower level maps, pretty much all we get, btw.
I hope there is a lot of talk going around at GGG about the map issues post 2.0 because it is simply unsustainable. And PLEASE don't talk to me about how you have to kill the boss to get the map. Bosses rarely drop maps on death, this hasn't changed. The majority of map drops comes from champion mobs. This has always been so and clearly it was not adjusted. I ran several maps this weekend ranging in lvl from 68-77 and killed every boss on purpose. 1 boss out of 20 dropped a +2 map, 2 dropped +1. Whatever was supposed to be working simply isn't. Censored.
| |
" There is. We should have more information soon. | |
" The fact that you've been active on the forum recently and in this way means a lot, and if you continue to do so (and if it makes any effect), it will make you (GGG) stand out from 99%+ of the game developers, in a good way of course. | |
"Again. It would make them stand out again. Still, it is a constant struggle, isn't it? When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
|
Thanks for your kindness, Tinko! It means a lot :) Carl has made a manifesto post regarding maps here.
| |
|
I came here to read a positive tinko post.
Good job Bex, keep it up! In case a dev doesn't wanna make time to answer your community's question, use the emergency flower pot. Nothing makes a men spill like an angry women with a flower pot in here hands. -beautiful desk decorations she said....- Off to read Carl's post, cheers. Peace, -Boem- Edit : marvelous read and outstanding news for the majority of the player-base i imagine! This news makes me anxious to push my char again :D Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes Last edited by Boem on Aug 11, 2015, 10:13:10 PM
|
