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

yes please

@SjakaWaka, Baron1, PolarisOrbit:
As my previous post shows, a 2:1 formula is not stronger than techniques currently available. As such, it is not "too strong," it is merely less "social," if one makes the argument trade is social (kinda stretching it). At their core these "2:1 too stronk" arguments are unaware of (or disregard) economic realties of maps and instead choose a naive whiteknight approach which assumes, prima face, that self-found mapping is currently "close to" sustainment balanced. It is not even close! 243:32 ratios are not OP because with maptrading currently it is a 243:22 ratio. Which is the game saying trade maps or get fucked. All I am asking is that those who would rather not trade maps are less forced into it, by making the ratio for +5 maps 32:22 (~3:2, still a big trade advantage) instead of an utterly absurd 11:1 trade v nontrade advantage.

and those maps you buy from other people they just sprout out of thin air right?
clearly they are sustaining so much that they can sell them.

that being said i don't think a player should be forced to trade to get higher.
i think trade should be away 2 get higher more quickly or for those few that had a bad RNG streak.

it shouldn't be something you do all the time.
(unless maybe for the realy high maps)

i just don't agree with the vendor recipe as the solution.

if you wanna go high in maps you should play them.
the fact that THAT isn't working for allot of people is a problem.

but the 1:2 trade just seems like a horrible band-aid.
and will also make to so that not only will there be a flood of midlevel maps.
high levels maps will be so easy 2 get as well. removing all meaning from them.

-----
PS
Also people pls stop assuming things.
because some1 says no to a suggested solution does not mean he doesn't think there's a problem.
it just means he doesn't like the suggested solution.

"

SjakaWaka wrote:

high levels maps will be so easy 2 get as well. removing all meaning from them.

The economy disagrees. Again...

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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

78+ maps would not become any easier for maptraders to get with a 2:1 vendor formula. (75-77 maps would be easier for maptraders to get with a 2:1 formula, but that is intentional.)

"

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.

Wrong. I play through 18 x 75s and and never seen a 77 map -- and I kill all bosses/mobs

Was wondering where this thread went, I found it on the second page.


I just felt the need to say so.

TheAnuhart just bumped one of my threads. The end (hopefully, of the 3:1 formula) is nigh.

ok I dunno if this has been suggested in the thread already, but it could scale right?

to make up to lvl76 maps its 2:1

and then to make a 77, 78 its 3:1

then 79, 80 its 4:1

81+ its 5:1


so the idea of "well it takes X maps now to get a lvl81 map" gets sorted. What are we really talking about here? Were talking about maps no one wants to run at high levels right? or should be running. I feel like no ones above running their level76 maps to build back up, its not about sustaining lvl80+ maps purely on vendor trade. Essentially thats slanting the system, because I feel people want this because they want to vendor everything up to 76s and GGG wouldnt want it because they dont want people vendoring 2x lvl80s for an 81 all day. Theres no need to make low to mid tier map vendoring really bad in order to protect the rarity of really high maps.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

ok I dunno if this has been suggested in the thread already, but it could scale right?

to make up to lvl76 maps its 2:1

and then to make a 77, 78 its 3:1

then 79, 80 its 4:1

81+ its 5:1


so the idea of "well it takes X maps now to get a lvl81 map" gets sorted. What are we really talking about here? Were talking about maps no one wants to run at high levels right? or should be running. I feel like no ones above running their level76 maps to build back up, its not about sustaining lvl80+ maps purely on vendor trade. Essentially thats slanting the system, because I feel people want this because they want to vendor everything up to 76s and GGG wouldnt want it because they dont want people vendoring 2x lvl80s for an 81 all day. Theres no need to make low to mid tier map vendoring really bad in order to protect the rarity of really high maps.

The thing is that the very highest tier of maps don't really need the protection.

In every mapping economy ever, looking just at the top four maplevels, there has never been a (>2):1 ratio in trade values of maps for a single maplevel. You're never really going to see it, either, unless it is accompanied by a mountain of QQ. A (>2):1 ratio is a very solid economic indicator that progressing from one maplevel to the next may be in serious trouble, because you just don't get trade value ratios like that unless there is some widespread unfairness going on.

What this means is: if the 2:1 formula were introduced today, players would use it to make 75-77 maps out of their 74-76 maps. They would do this because those are the maplevels were sustainment feels funky/off. Currently, there isn't a huge problem with 80+ sustainment, so players would not need to use, and would not use, the vendor formula to make 80+ maps.

I mean, let's put it this way: let's say we introduced Chaos Orbs for sale, at NPC vendor, for a price of 3 Alchs each. How much impact would that have on min/maxers who exchange currency? Pretty much none; right now, all the ratios in all leagues are better than that. Such a formula would be used exclusively by non-traders. For the exact same reason, a 2:1 map vendor formula would barely be used by active traders for any map above 77... Furthermore it would take a weird future economy for Alch to ever be (>3):1 Chaos, it would be a warning in and of itself that things are off. In the sane way, the only time maptraders would actually use a 2:1 map vendor formula is when droprates for progressing to the next level were naturally fucked up enough that the economy would otherwise use an extreme value ratio.

For further classification:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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

Bold indicates where the current map droprate problem is. Nonbold indicates where nonmaptraders would NOT rely on 2:1 formula.