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

"

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.

The odd thing about this response is that it's even less likely to get more progress with one map than one would with 3 maps one level lower.

I still think a 2:1 formula is the best idea, and although I am certainly curious why the devs didn't/don't believe so, I'd have to see their reasoning before I let it trump my own analysis of map economies since 1.0.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

1. It is functionally equivalent to an increase in map drop rates for non-maptrading players. This is important because economic data from poe.trade shows that Big Economy can sustain 78 and lower maps, while a mountain of Feedback forum QQ shows that those who avoid maptrading cannot sustain maps at those levels.

This could certainly use some clarification.

Being able to buy maps can certainly help one individual get a jump on their progress, but those maps aren't just appearing from nowhere. Every map sold is coming from someone else's pool. The people selling mid to high 70s maps likely aren't buying higher maps in most situations. Even if they are, someone is producing those higher maps.

This idea that trading to/for maps has any effect on the total maps being found is pretty shortsighted. When poe.trade prices are cited it's because they show that there are plenty of maps dropping on the whole that people are comfortable selling them, it's not to tell people that they should just buy their maps.

It's not that they cannot sustain maps at those levels, because it's clear that people are. "Big Economy" doesn't just shower the game with maps by virtue of being Big Economy.


e: Not that I disagree with your 2:1 thing entirely. Vendoring up maps is a pretty bad deal in the long run and I don't think bumping it up to 2:1 would really change that much.

"

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.

Well, considering getting +2 seems to be about a 1 in 20 chance, getting 3 +2's from 18 maps is actually quite ahead of the curve.

This would result in many many high level maps vendored instead of being run, not sure the developers would want that.

"

Zed_ wrote:

This would result in many many high level maps vendored instead of being run, not sure the developers would want that.

If they wanted people to run high level maps, they wouldn't have implemented these abysmal drop rates.

"

JahIthBer89 wrote:

This could certainly use some clarification.

I think the argument goes like this:

- The mods required to stay in high level maps require a lot of currency.
- Without the ability to sell your lower level map drops you simply run out of currency.

Edit: should have added that it's obviously possible to farm out all the currency needed to roll maps in 65-67 zones (fragments, chaos recipes, alterations). Not sure how many high end mappers would be happy with that kind of time spent ratio though.

"

Caustic2 wrote:

If they wanted people to run high level maps, they wouldn't have implemented these abysmal drop rates.

They want people to run them, just not all the time. 79+ is an extension of the pre-expansion mapping system, not a simple upscale. You can't expect to run 82s the way you ran 78s in 1.3.

Something like 6:1 or 5:1 for +2, would be a useless recipe. Progressing through maps relies on huge sample size, because RNG variance is also huge.

Therefore it's much better (safer, sure-shot), to have 6 or 5 maps in your pocket, than one +2. This is more true, the higher the tier we are talking about.

If you mean to do such recipe just to get rid of some unwanted maps, then ok, but for progression purposes, it would be useless.

"

Zed_ wrote:

They want people to run them, just not all the time. 79+ is an extension of the pre-expansion mapping system, not a simple upscale. You can't expect to run 82s the way you ran 78s in 1.3.

I don't give a shit about running 80+ maps, I just want to be able to run 77's and 78's like I could in 1.3. I would be perfectly fine if they made 76-78's way more common and 79+ way more rare.

I look at the situation like this, There are 2 things I can do to consume a map:
1) Run the map
2) Apply it in some sort of vendor recipe (chisel, match 3, etc.)

These options aren't equal, running the map needs to be the superior option between the two, at least when we consider a player who has infinite time. That's obvious, right? The vendor recipe is only a backup when running the map is too low to bother!


The problem with an efficient vendor recipe is that it pushes option 2 into option 1's territory. If it's a map that you would consider running at its level, then the vendor recipe needs to be inferior to actually playing it-- and not just slightly inferior, either. It needs to be enough inferior that it's not a question where I need to gather data points or keep logs to determine which option is superior. If the expected returns between the 2 are so close that I need 30+ tries before I'm really sure, then even if I do take the inferior option I don't fall far behind. And what does it do to people who make their judgments even quicker? The first 2 maps Alice didn't get any upgrades so she (incorrectly) assumes the only way to progress is to combine maps and never play them. That's a far worse problem than what we have now. If playing maps (instead of vendor-combining) is seen as a gamble of comparable merit as using fuses (rather than paying Vorici) then GGG has failed the mapping system.

I just checked the topic of the guy who ran 30 L76 maps. After all the currency, time, and risk he undertook, he ended up with only 8 maps that were higher than L76. In other words, he would have done better with your vendor recipe than he did by actually playing the maps! That's a sanity check for you.