Map vendor formula: should add "2 unidentified maps of same base = +1 level map"
|
The news post points to 74 maps as a key problem spot. I believe my 2:1 formula suggestion has maximum impact at or around that maplevel and should be seriously considered as a possible solution.
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.
|
|
" ya the problem is time. sure Id get more maps if I ran all my lower maps rather than vendor them. but how much time do they expect us to spend running content that is so trivial the monsters can barely even hurt you? I dont have 40 hours to spend running content that is a complete joke in order to earn a few hours content that actually constitutes a fun challenging game. Seriously like 75%+ of my hours spent playing PoE has been running lowball, useless, completely faceroll 1 shot content in order to earn the right to actually play proper content. 75% of my time playing poe = 6k hours wasting my time facerolling trivial nonsense... can I just play the content you have designed to be appropriate for my characters please? Is that too much to ask? Can we just cut the bullshit time wasting and actually have an endgame that functions after 2 and a half years of this nonsense? It feels like its close, some of the changes to maps have been really good but I dont know how much longer we are going to wait for you guys at GGG to actually let us play the proper game, it got beyond a joke to the point where it was literally anger inducing over 2 years ago and we are still here. Im so tired of making these posts, fix your game while you still have a game to fix, while you still have players who can be bothered to type this shit rather than just uninstall. |
|
|
Thank you for replying Bex! What Tinko92 said, and you are an asset to GGG.
Censored.
|
|
" the problem with this is that it's to much of a boost in mapping. the difference in 3:1 and 2:1 is huge. maybe in the lower levels , but i would hate to see it in the mid/higher level maps. here a small table to illustrate my point. lvl 'new' 'old' +1 2 3 +2 4 9 +3 8 27 +4 16 81 +5 32 243 not to mention people are just gonna skip out on harder boss by using this recipe. also the notion of progressing trough maps by vendoring them instead of playing them, can't say i'm a fan. |
|
" So, you are OK with the current recipe because it's pointless? And not OK with Scrotie's proposal because it would work? Mmmkay. People wouldn't 'progress through maps by vending instead of playing them' they would vend them up when that/those tier/s had become obsolete. The 3:1 recipe was virtually never used, at least pre 2.0 one could turn obsolete maps into alch shards, they removed that, though. 3:1 pointless, no more alch shards, nowhere near enough hammers and stones to utilise in chisel recipe, right now it comes down to 5 maps = a wisdom scroll and that just isn't worth the time. Casually casual. Last edited by TheAnuhart#4741 on Aug 13, 2015, 8:06:08 PM
|
|
|
How many same-or-better-level maps do we expect to get from an "average" map that is played? This is a number series whose value at each map level decreases. If that value drops below 1/X, where X is the number of maps it takes to use the vendor recipe, then you can progress faster with vendors than with maps. The transition point is at equality.
Is this a real concern? It depends whether the game crosses the transition point where it takes more maps to continue than the vendor recipe consumes. It's pretty obvious this doesn't happen at 3 maps. However, at 1 map (not proposed, but mentioned by way of demonstration), it would clearly be superior to use the vendor recipe. By the Intermediate Value Theorem, there must be a transition point somewhere between 1 and 3 which pivots between map-superior and vendor-superior. I highlight this to show the transition is not a hypothetical: it definitely occurs for some value of vendor maps in the recipe. The fact is established, the only thing to argue is where precisely that transition occurs. That's enough to cast a shadow of doubt on 2. It's going to take some math to determine where that transition point is, and how much of a margin shall be given to it. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any math to support the 2 proposal; just a "feel" that it would be good. This is about rate-of-return, so the "feel" is going to be governed by the mathematics of it. It doesn't make sense to use the result of the fine tuning (the "feel") as an argument for how to do the fine tuning, yet that seems to be the only support we have that 2 is the right number. Of course the community can only evaluate hypotheticals with so much accuracy, but I have noticed a trend in this topic where people who lead with the "feels" argument tend to favor the change while people who lead with the math argument tend to be against the change. That's another shadow (at least, if the community is to be trusted as a reliable source for evaluating hypotheticals). |
|
" Are you ok with people buying maps to progress? You shouldn't be, because no playing at all is involved in this case. In the ideal world, playing a map would give you some progression toward the next difficulty. In the high-variance-RNG currency-sink world, you have to tier them up, buy them, leech parties... When night falls
She cloaks the world In impenetrable darkness |
|
" The issue with such mathematical approach is that it is based on "average" return. The real issue is a fact that such average return is based on millions of repeats--something normal player never achieves and even if someone is crazy enough to get to such number, it would take ages. We don't play on averages--not everybody trades, not everybody do parties, etc. 2:1 recipe would help with the dips in between map drop peaks. It would also help those that want to progress more deterministically--they can make deliberate choice to run lower maps and slowly progress higher for whatever reason they might have. Map drop rates would have to be rebalanced in light of this change but since we do not have numbers, it is only GGG who could make that call. Trading-in maps at 2:1 might sound too good and might lead people to believe that you can easily progress to higher maps but just trading. You could do that but you will be going slower, you forgo any potential drops be it currency or gear and of course maps that can be up to +2 level. On the other hand, you remove RNG and costs of rolling maps by trading in. I can not make a judgement on what could be better. |
|
|
Polaris wants math. Okay.
Maplevel, poe.trade lowest price (Warbands, in Alts), ratio with previous maplevel (:1) 68, 1, n/a 69, 2, 2 70, 2.5, 1.25 71, 2.5, 1 72, 2.5, 1 73, 5, 2 74, 8, 1.6 75, 20, 2.5 76, 50, 2.5 77, 120, 2.4 78, 170, 1.42 79, 340, 2 80, 610, 1.8 81, 680, 1.11 82, 1190, 1.75 Average ratio from 72 to 82 is (1190/2.5)^0.1, which is 1.85. So maptraders currently never get a ratio less than 2.5:1 and very often enjoy better than 2:1 ratio... on average, maptraders currently enjoy a 1.85:1 ratio on upgrading their maps. A 2:1 vendor formula would bring some changes (especially to 75-77 sustainment, the value of 72s would probably about double while 71s would maintain their price) but have virtually no effect on the trade of 78 and higher maps. 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. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Aug 14, 2015, 8:47:26 AM
|
|
|
@Bex: Just wanted to thank you for engaging the community in this conversation! It's really nice to watch someone with a line to the devs present, paying attention, and treating our ideas respectfully.
Yes, we often have dumb or self-serving feedback and get overly emotional, but in the long run we're all working to make the game better. Getting engaged responses from GGG representatives - being able to have a real public conversation with them - makes us all feel more welcome and equal in that effort! @Scrotie: Still agree with your 2:1 idea. If GGG doesn't want folks getting too many 79+ maps, they can keep the recipes for them more expensive or remove those recipes entirely. Ultimately, however, what GGG really should do is add even more maps (up to 85 or so). I suppose that will happen with Act 5! We're all in this leaky boat together, people. Last edited by demon9675#2961 on Aug 14, 2015, 4:05:39 AM
|
|
