Map drop rates are a real problem

"

Sogolon wrote:

Or does the rarity of the map affect map drops?

Rarity (as in: alced map) produces more affixes, therefore more quantity bonus and potentially more map drops. But when the quanity bonus scales linearily, the actual map difficulty scales exponentially. 150%+ maps are usually not worth the trouble. The "sweet spot" is somewhere at 70% - 90%.

The issue of high RNG variance becomes problematic only in late mid & early high maps, where people strive to max map quanity (=wasting lots of orbs) just to see them drop noting useful.

Mapping is ok-ish up to 75 or 76 tier which covers most of the playerbase (and is enough to get your char to 90). If you want to go higher expect huge costs and a lot of frustration.

"

The first change in these patch notes says the players IIQ stat does not affect the drop rate of maps anymore. It does still increase the drop rate of everything else in the map though.

Good to know this. Glad that map drops aren't gear depended, since it would force strict builds even more.

I would be ok with map crafting costs and risks, and even with crappy map drops, if I wouldn't constantly run out of currency (yes im running out of chaos/alchs/chisels (chiseling white maps), while using 1 chaos in average per map), not even speaking about vaal orbs (they are so rare!), so I need to farm currency somewhere elsewhere or trade stuff, which again restricts gameplay.

Really this post says everything I feel about the matter:

"

vio wrote:

to define "endgame" a game developer either has to make end content so hard that NO character survives it or restrict access.

ggg chose the latter and combined the real and only curency link to it: rolling maps.
that you burned alot of currency is a prove the system works.

that you didn't succeed maintaining endgame maps is another proof the system works: if every player can easily sustain level 78+ maps it's no real restriction anymore and players don't have to spend massive amounts of currency to it.


so your complaint is just a try to change the system. that's a proven method but the bad thing is, they won't do it because they would have to invent another currency sink if players get free endgame access (you don't want item and/or currency degradation do you?)

and there wouldn't be less complaints as players would then try to force ggg to make endgame easier so they don't die.

Those of you who want content gated by difficulty will get it in 2.2 with content gated behind puzzles. Is that the right kind of difficulty, or will you complain about the "kind" of difficulty then?

Also uniques and high-end rares are also content. Is it ok that they're gated behind low drop/craft rates or should they be available so everyone can experience all the content?

"

morbo wrote:

The problem of PoE's RNG gated content is huge variance, which results in a very inconsistent progression. GGG top brass thinks that not gaining any progression in 150%+ rolled rip-maps is ok, since piss-easy rolled blue maps will sometimes drop several +1 to "compensate"... But in reality this system sucks, because it produces a bad difficulty / reward gaming experience.

Variance is catalytic to grouping and trade and punishing to solo self-found. If players refuse to take advantage of all the tools and complexities the game has to offer, why should they be able to achieve the same level of anything as those that do?

"

Vhlad wrote:

there's a forgone risk-adjusted opportunity cost for consuming a T12+ map instead of selling it (and the cost is high enough to be meaningful). I'd enjoy PoE more if the cost was brought down so it wasn't meaningful, preferably via an offline client or more abundant T12+ (red tier) drops. You know, since map tiers were added I've leveled one character from 0 to 90 and another from 92 to 94.7 and I haven't run a single T13+ map yet.

If the opportunity cost of T13s seems high to you, then you should sell them. Just like if you vaal a lazhwar to get +4% block, you should sell it for 8exalts rather than you use it on your bow build. For people who are 97+, the opportunity cost of not running T13+ is higher than paying 30c-1.5ex for them (especially if they do rotations), and they'll gladly pay you. Both parties win.

Regardless, doing anything beyond T11 isn't necessary to reach L100 if you don't die. Past T11 it's all luxury, better exp/time, just like how you'd have better exp/time if you had better gear. And if you're not complaining about gear not being deterministically obtainable, you shouldn't complain about maps not being deterministically obtainable.

Hi

One day this game will catch up to lvl 90+ characters and that day will be glorious...in the meantime take solace in the fact your build kicks ass. Screw the ''trade cancer'' experience.

Lol GGG could even simply add some added IIQ implicit to characters over 90+,* cough, cough like a paragon lvl cough orrrrr we as players make a new build, leave the awesome build on the bench till the day GGG catches up ORRRRRRR GGG could finally make a descent-maelstrum endless high lvl dungeon!!!!!!! so players can choose between lame maps or an infinite circle jerk dungeon, I know which one I WOULD CHOOSE.

cheers

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

"

Vhlad wrote:

there's a forgone risk-adjusted opportunity cost for consuming a T12+ map instead of selling it (and the cost is high enough to be meaningful). I'd enjoy PoE more if the cost was brought down so it wasn't meaningful, preferably via an offline client or more abundant T12+ (red tier) drops. You know, since map tiers were added I've leveled one character from 0 to 90 and another from 92 to 94.7 and I haven't run a single T13+ map yet.

If the opportunity cost of T13s seems high to you, then you should sell them. Just like if you vaal a lazhwar to get +4% block, you should sell it for 8exalts rather than you use it on your bow build. For people who are 97+, the opportunity cost of not running T13+ is higher than paying 30c-1.5ex for them (especially if they do rotations), and they'll gladly pay you. Both parties win.

It's $7.95 (or the currency equivalent) for a T15. $7.95 for 10 minutes of play time.
Content scarcity combined with RMT makes this the most pay to play game I know of.

If GGG could stop all RMT so that such conversions were impossible I'd be less bothered by it. But if you spend a few minutes in chat, visit certain websites, or do a quick google, the RMT is in your face.

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

Those of you who want content gated by difficulty will get it in 2.2 with content gated behind puzzles. Is that the right kind of difficulty, or will you complain about the "kind" of difficulty then?

Also uniques and high-end rares are also content. Is it ok that they're gated behind low drop/craft rates or should they be available so everyone can experience all the content?

Yes, that's the right kind of difficulty, :P

Also, areas and items are oranges and apples. The later work as carrots and the former are stuff we are used to get for free in almost every game.

Uniques that allow new builds are probably the only ones that can count as gated content (and that's the reason that GGG quadrupled T1 drops, or created stuff like Solaris Lorica, so it seems they don't want to gate builds that much, just the BIS aspect of it).

I think they wanted to make high tier maps something like special treats (like the Ubers in Diablo 2), but they went overboard with it (I can count with my hand how many people defend this), or at least is poorly communicated. Some said that it would have made sense for GGG to make higher tiers unique maps for that reason.

The IIQ ON THE MAP increases map drops. Any other source of IIQ does not. Please continue to alch your maps.

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

If the opportunity cost of T13s seems high to you, then you should sell them. Just like if you vaal a lazhwar to get +4% block, you should sell it for 8exalts rather than you use it on your bow build. For people who are 97+, the opportunity cost of not running T13+ is higher than paying 30c-1.5ex for them (especially if they do rotations), and they'll gladly pay you. Both parties win.

Except for the party that wants challenge and explore content.

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

Regardless, doing anything beyond T11 isn't necessary to reach L100 if you don't die.

Can we PLEASE just stop assuming that everyone wants to get to lvl 100? About 95% of the player base do not have this goal, I am pretty sure. So stop going back to that argument. I am pretty sure the content-explorers and challenge-seekers are more numerous than those that really want to push for lvl 100.

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

And if you're not complaining about gear not being deterministically obtainable, you shouldn't complain about maps not being deterministically obtainable.

Thats just a bad comparison, and you know it. Get a piece of gear and keep it (progress). Get a map, play it, gone (no progress). See the difference?

If a map would give me infinite access to that map, I would not complain about the scarcity of high-level maps.

"

Vhlad wrote:

It's $7.95 (or the currency equivalent) for a T15. $7.95 for 10 minutes of play time.
Content scarcity combined with RMT makes this the most pay to play game I know of.

If GGG could stop all RMT so that such conversions were impossible I'd be less bothered by it. But if you spend a few minutes in chat, visit certain websites, or do a quick google, the RMT is in your face.

Why are you so obsessed with RMT. Just don't do it and trust that GGG will eventually ban people who do. Problem solved.

The transaction cost (risk) of buying/selling T15s via RMT is the non-negligible risk of losing your entire account, worth much more than any reasonable amount of maps. So rational people won't engage in RMT, and logically it's a non-issue.

"

Char1983 wrote:

Can we PLEASE just stop assuming that everyone wants to get to lvl 100? About 95% of the player base do not have this goal, I am pretty sure. So stop going back to that argument. I am pretty sure the content-explorers and challenge-seekers are more numerous than those that really want to push for lvl 100.

We have to define an assumed goal in order to have this discussion about how hard map drops make achieving those goals. If your goal is to simply do the 82 maps then buy them, that's approximately a 4ex goal ATM, much easier than L100. If your goal is to do the 82 maps without buying maps, then do that, but don't complain that you're having trouble in a game that is built around trade. I use L100 as a more complex goal that subsumes many of the other goals players may have (experiencing top tier maps, testing the capabilities of their build, etc).

"

Char1983 wrote:

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

And if you're not complaining about gear not being deterministically obtainable, you shouldn't complain about maps not being deterministically obtainable.

Thats just a bad comparison, and you know it. Get a piece of gear and keep it (progress). Get a map, play it, gone (no progress). See the difference?

If a map would give me infinite access to that map, I would not complain about the scarcity of high-level maps.

Consumable vs Nonconsumable is simplistic. The actual questions a rational player asks themselves should be how they spend currency to achieve their goal. Should I pay 10ex to improve my gear or should I use 10ex to buy more maps. Will 10ex of maps or 10ex of gear help me achieve my goal sooner? That's why people who are going for the first L100 will spend everything on maps once they have good gear, and those who just hit L90 can't conceive of spending that much on maps and rather buy gear to keep getting incremental upgrades. This also enables trade: one group values maps whereas the other values gear.

If maps are easily obtainable, the people whose goal is L100 no longer have to pay their currency surplus to progress. Likewise if gear were easily obtainable, the people whose goal is L90 and then as strong as possible also have nowhere to sink their currency. The game becomes more boring for a group of people in either case, that's why both cases are similar.

Deterministic vs Stochastic progress in gear/maps doesn't matter as long as you accept trade and group play (in order to balance for variance). If you refuse to trade, you shouldn't ask for GGG to make it easier for you at the expense of others who do use everything they can.

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

Deterministic vs Stochastic progress in gear/maps doesn't matter as long as you accept trade and group play (in order to balance for variance). If you refuse to trade, you shouldn't ask for GGG to make it easier for you at the expense of others who do use everything they can.

Why not?

A lot of people arguing here and elsewhere assume a fair bit on behalf of GGG. Like that they're cool with people either trading or quitting. I'm not sure that's true (fewer people = less income being the obvious rebuttal); and even if it is, you don't get what you don't ask for.

IMO one of the few useful things support could do with this forum is to censor suggestions that people stop asking for X/Y/Z. Even if GGG has flat out said they'll never do something, they've changed their minds in the past and it's important for any company running an online game to continually re-evaluate the approach - even if the evaluation tells them to keep doing what they're doing. It's something that GGG do, but something that any company including GGG would find very difficult in a vacuum of feedback.

PS divination cards suggest GGG actually are trying to find ways to cater to both traders and those who abhor trading. Even if the implementation felt unfortunately un-impactful.