Map drop is NOT fine and it is killing the fun

.

Ohlook, people ranting about RNG once again.
You don't mind everything is decided by a random number, but the second Maps come into the picture, you lose your shit.

If Socketing/Linking/Colouring and rolling Flasks is fine, then so is the current Map system, it's all RNG afterall. That's how the game was designed.

Either you somehow make the game more about ACTUAL crafting and remove random bullshit, or you stay with what we got now.

"

johnKeys wrote:

I liked your coins and marbles example.
but what's missing from it is the part where the player can actually be good at the game itself, rather than the trade around it.
unless you imply the trade IS the game - where I strongly disagree.

the marbles? well each has modifiers, and tiers and whatnot - making it "harder" or "riskier" compared to others, or vice versa.
the "good player (tm)" can play with the harder ones which also offer more risk of losing the game (especially on "hardcore").
but there is not a single damned point in doing so... because we let RNGsus decide fates for all regardless of anything else. so the "smart player (tm)" uses trade.
but not to balance RNGsus. to bypass it as much as possible.

ADDIT: also, Mapping isn't loot. it is content. while I've put up with the seemingly complete lack of risk/reward ratio in loot over the years (albeit kicking and screaming) - access to content is where I feel the "RNG Uber Alles" line in the sand should really be drawn.
"PoE RNG Uber Alles" to be precise. because RNG all by itself is a very good and necessary concept in ARPG - but looks like GGG murdered the poor bastard, and replaced him with [casinotycoon.jpg]

I do not believe the reward component of the map affix system should focus on risk-reward; instead, it should focus on gameplay variance. Giving wildly different rewards for two different suffixes is a mistake, because it encourages players to roll to the higher reward (riskier, not riskier, doesn't really matter, unless you actually cannot build around it AND it's murderous), and rarely run the lower-reward affixes. Maps have a lot of "illusion of variety" right now, because pack size.

Instead, the correct "risk-reward" for maps is: hmm, this randomly rolled map looks tricky. Should I use a Chaos to reroll it, which might get something no better and lead to multiple Chaos spent? Or be greedy, keep my Chaos, and just run it, risking a hefty XP loss if I die?

So my risk-reward conclusions for maps affixes are:
1. Prefixes should all have roughly the same reward as other competing prefixes; suffixes, as other suffixes (gameplay variety > risk-reward)
2. The gameplay effect of affixes should be tuned such that, for the builds most effected, the decision to reroll the map (spending Chaos) vs just running it is as difficult a choice as possible. This means no outright immunities (curse/stun/leech) and no Blood Magic. But that doesn't mean super easy, either. (This is the risk-reward part.)
3. The currency sink component of maps should be: six affixes give more reward than five, which give more reward than four, which gives more reward than two. There is no need to take it any further than that.

Unfortunately, GGG seems to have the view that maprolling needs to be primarily about being a currency sink, which erroneously pushes risk-reward onto the reward component of affixes, which leaves gameplay variety with no place to go. Or perhaps more accurately, they try to make gameplay variety and risk-reward share the same design space, and as a result neither gets done properly. But at least The Economeh is safe.

Lastly, I got stash tabs full of maps. So they're loot. Deal with it.

.

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

"

Derpey wrote:

Either you somehow make the game more about ACTUAL crafting and remove random bullshit, or you stay with what we got now.

Actual crafting? So I'll need a forge and anvil in addition to a gaming computer now?

Bwa-hahahaha! Good one.

...getting the :popcorn: now.

Scrotie, you are not talking about my kind of risk/reward, or what I consider risk/reward in an ARPG game to be.
you are talking about Poker. Texas Holdem. "should I call, check, raise, or go all-in?".

I like Poker but well... we aren't here to play that, right? we are here to kill nasty shit and collect lootz. make characters stronk and fun to play with a truck-load of gems and a tree the size of The Milky Way.
maybe trade for more/faster killing of nastier shit, maybe not. maybe solo, maybe co-op. maybe take on scary boss, maybe not. maybe HC, maybe SC. maybe temp league, maybe perm...

as for maps and modifiers, I actually have this thread depicting how my kind of content risk/reward and progression could look like.

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1572744

one suggestion out of a possible thousand really.
and there's even work for RNGesus. lots of work with a nice salary and plenty of free dice to spare.
but he's not going to be guarding any doors or bouncing people he doesn't like all the way back to Tropical Island.

there was a time long ago in a far away land called Feedback Forum, when people suggested stuff and GGG actually listened.
but then some people dared say "risk/reward" and/or suggest core game and concept improvements, at which point Chris said "fuck you!" and ran off to Reddit.

If poker isn't risk-reward to you, then what the fuck is?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If poker isn't risk-reward to you, then what the fuck is?

Poker is Poker risk/reward.
ARPG risk/reward is ARPG risk/reward.

go back and read teh post.

Stating the law of identity explains nothing.

I did read your post. Here are my conclusions:
1. I still don't know what your issue is.
2. Maybe you believe risk-reward and RNG are opposites, or are mutually exclusive, but I'd want to confirm my suspicion before making a wall of text on why that's wrong.

I dunno. That marble analogy seems to indicate that every marble given back to the players is of the same value. If that were the case I could trade my T1 marble for T15....but that's not the case so I don't think that the analogy is pure in that sense.

The fact that maps are seen as a commodity is odd to me. Loot as a commodity i understand...but if maps = loot...then the entire system seems to be flawed. But I guess in this game crafting mats = currency as well so all rules are out the window.

Put simply regardless if you can trade your way into higher maps or not, I think the argument that always presides is that end game content should just be there...accessible to everyone.

The regression comment about beating merciless AND still going back to clear cruel over and over is a very valid comparison, because that's what the player is "feeling".

If a player feels as if they are regressing, no amount of convincing will change how they feel.

Personally I think that so many things are tied into the economy that it would be OK if maps were the one thing that weren't tied to it.

In a game where currency drops are uncertain. Loot drops are uncertain. Trade availability and prices are uncertain. Why not have ONE THING that actually is not tied to trading?

I understand that this game is best played when a player embraces trading, however I don't think that every aspect of the game should involve trading....maps being one of those things.