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

Interesting suggestion, McB! I ran it by the developers. Apparently we tried the 2:1 trade-in in the past and it didn't have the desired outcome. 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. There's still a lot of other internal discussion around maps at the moment.

"

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.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

I hope there is a lot of talk going around at GGG about the map issues post 2.0

There is. We should have more information soon.

Thanks for your kindness, Tinko! It means a lot :) Carl has made a manifesto post regarding maps here.