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

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Bex_GGG wrote:

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.

The above shows to me that devs are not always up to speed with their game, their players and community.

Bex' quote shows that they are looking at the trading ratio as a way to progress into higher tiers when in fact this trading in is only use to utilized for wastly under-level maps to scale them up.

2:1 trade-in ratio would help to soothe players who receive -3 or lower map drops from their high-level maps because those could be relatively easy converted to something more valuable. This improved ratio would be also used to more effectively trade-in maps that you do not want to run--I usually trade Museum or Wharf up because those bosses are way too dangerous for non-capped Chaos res characters. I could still clear the map and skip the boss but I want to kill all bosses for potential +2 map drops.

on the OP:
I do not agree with some of the reasoning and sentiment ScrotieMcB is using but the suggestion is sound. This is one way to would help mapping without making any significant changes drop rates. This is also an alternative that is not forced upon players--you can chose to trade-in for higher level map or chance your luck with 2 lower level maps. 2:1 would make for interesting decision and weighting of outcomes, 3:1 clearly benefits running maps if they are around appropriate level and leaves bitter taste when trading-in at low level.

"

Baron01 wrote:

The above shows to me that devs are not always up to speed with their game, their players and community.

people like you are responsible for even less dev discussions and information flow from ggg towards us.

what a hilarious and ridiculous claim: "devs don't know their game" ... they have statistics about nearly everything in the game which they can base their decisions upon.

what have you? your personal experience? those 20-50 regular posters in these forums? all players complaining here which are surely below 1% of the player base?

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

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.

No, this is sanity check for devs, not for players.

"

vio wrote:

people like you are responsible for even less dev discussions and information flow from ggg towards us.

what a hilarious and ridiculous claim: "devs don't know their game" ... they have statistics about nearly everything in the game which they can base their decisions upon.

what have you? your personal experience? those 20-50 regular posters in these forums? all players complaining here which are surely below 1% of the player base?

You dont find it strange that a dev conveys a message that implies that trading in maps would be used by players at top-end of a map curve and the reason for not improving the trade-in ratio is because that could potentially hurt those players?

I'll be frank here: Nobody, absolutely nobody, sane enough would trade 2 lvl77 maps for 1 lvl78 or similar trade scenarios. You only trade those low level maps to actually convert them to something useful.

Completely misplaced assumption used as a reason not to improve trade-in ratio is crazy. Maybe their statistics failed to picked that situation.

Problem with GGG's responses lately, especially since Awakening beta, is that those responses are very often half-assed, poorly written and seriously lacking in information department. Beta was absolutely horrible in this regard.

I appreciate this issue was brought in front of devs by Bex. I always assumed feedback is in one form or other consolidated and provided to devs even if it was not acknowledged. On the other hand, I do not have any illusion that GGG will act on that feedback, especially in a way most people posting such feedback would like them to do.

"

Caustic2 wrote:

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.

Well I have no problem sustaining that tier with chisel-alch-chaos for a decent roll, with the occasional vaal, and I've done a lot of maps so I don't think my experience is that much of an outlier.
The occasional foray into 79+ with very good mods will still yield a decent number of 76-78s on top of the high maps, and 74-75s are piling up to be traded up at the vendors.

My bigger gripe is that map rolling currency is clearly unsustainable without trading (chisels, alchs and chaos, mainly chisels), which forces me to do lower content to farm this currency (mainly 76s with a simple alch) when I don't get map buyers. On the bright side, this gets me the occasional 77-78 map.

"

vio wrote:

"

Baron01 wrote:

The above shows to me that devs are not always up to speed with their game, their players and community.

people like you are responsible for even less dev discussions and information flow from ggg towards us.

what a hilarious and ridiculous claim: "devs don't know their game" ... they have statistics about nearly everything in the game which they can base their decisions upon.

what have you? your personal experience? those 20-50 regular posters in these forums? all players complaining here which are surely below 1% of the player base?

"

Chris wrote:

It's worth noting that +2 maps are a dangerous thing. They can cause players to get out of their depth

"

Baron01 wrote:

You dont find it strange that a dev conveys a message that implies that trading in maps would be used by players at top-end of a map curve and the reason for not improving the trade-in ratio is because that could potentially hurt those players?

as long as it's not stated it's bex' personal opinion. and she is no developer.

that's the problem with this forum: every opinion from ggg staff is seen as a official announcement and they get nailed down for years after on what they said once.

which results in them not discussing anything anymore in the forums as they once did.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

"

Chris wrote:

It's worth noting that +2 maps are a dangerous thing. They can cause players to get out of their depth

as i wrote: if somebody kept every not really lucky argument of mine and posted it for years to come i would hold back my opinion completely.

Those rare snippets of developer insight is all we get on the forum and they are pretty much always detached from the reality of the game. Remember the comment about "farming midnights correctly"? It's no surprise then that people assume they don't play their own game, or if they do they muck about casually in normal.

The only exception is Mark who posts a lot and actually knows what he's talking about.

"

holocaustus wrote:

Those rare snippets of developer insight is all we get on the forum and they are pretty much always detached from the reality of the game. Remember the comment about "farming midnights correctly"? It's no surprise then that people assume they don't play their own game, or if they do they muck about casually in normal.

sure, i remember.
my only question is: did somebody eventually find the more elegant way to farm them?

"

holocaustus wrote:

The only exception is Mark who posts a lot and actually knows what he's talking about.

that exactly: if they do they will only talk about things they are 100% sure about.

easy for mark, bad for others who have a more broad field of work where you can't just state facts you got from some piece of code you wrote.

"

vio wrote:

my only question is: did somebody eventually find the more elegant way to farm them?

Yes, deterministically farm midnights on what was then poe.xyz.