major end game design flaw (map drop rates / currency dump)

"

Oatz wrote:

Basically, reducing the currency sink necessary for map progression would not cause orb inflation it would cause the average quality of items players have to increase since more orbs would be used towards crafting rather than towards rolling maps.

It would however greatly increase the gap in wealth between endgame players and new players. This is what I think they are trying to accomplish with the system. It encourages some trading between the high level and lower level players, and ensures that the players accruing the wealth from the high level maps (white ilvl 77 items sell well) are not disproportionally wealthy due to the need to invest currency in the system to continue high level maps.

I agree that there are issues with the current system, but I believe the premise of maps as currency sink is not necessarily a bad one.

How do you define wealth?

Orbs? Items?

If you say orbs look at my post.

If you say items - the aggregate quality of all items will be increased across the board. Gini coefficient will not change. Guessing your just a fanboy and know nothing about economics spewing your "omg the rich get richer poor get poorer" nonsense.

"

Oatz wrote:

How do you define wealth?

Orbs? Items?

If you say orbs look at my post.

If you say items - the aggregate quality of all items will be increased across the board. Gini coefficient will not change. Guessing your just a fanboy and know nothing about economics spewing your "omg the rich get richer poor get poorer" nonsense.

Sorry, I don't argue with stupid people.

Is the so called "end-game" content now really "end game"?
Won´t they add more acts?
If they would add more acts and the map drop system wouldn´t be in place like it´s now wouldn´t there be a huge player base that´s allready over leveled for the next content?

"

thepmrc wrote:

Sorry, I don't argue with stupid people.

Great response! Instead of logically explaining why you believe the gini coefficient would be altered you resort to personal attacks. Seems like you're the stupid/ignorant one.

"

Oatz wrote:

"

thepmrc wrote:

Sorry, I don't argue with stupid people.

Great response!

Again, Thank you! You are a very thoughtful person.

"

Slinkston wrote:

Ran 2 maps yesterday with 30-50% quantity on both, as well with my farming gear of 140 quantity and did not get a SINGLE map from either of the maps. /facepalm.

What if every map guaranteed to drop ONE map of similar level? Even in a party, you'd only be guaranteed one map that doesn't need as much rolling. The rest would be subject to today's map drop characteristics.

The single map could be dropped by any monster.

There's a lot of content in this thread and I've not got to maps yet so I may have missed the point. However, as a casual solo player who doesn't like trading, I'm concerned that I'm heading towards an end-game that could simply fizzle out through bad luck.

"

obadonke wrote:

"

Slinkston wrote:

Ran 2 maps yesterday with 30-50% quantity on both, as well with my farming gear of 140 quantity and did not get a SINGLE map from either of the maps. /facepalm.

What if every map guaranteed to drop ONE map of similar level?

Then maps would no longer be a valuable commodity.

"

Guessing your just a fanboy and know nothing about economics spewing your "omg the rich get richer poor get poorer" nonsense.

**intermediate response deleted**

"

Great response! Instead of logically explaining why you believe the gini coefficient would be altered you resort to personal attacks.

When you put these two quotes this particular order, it appears to be rather ironic to me, actually. I mean seriously, when you stomp on someone's foot, you can't appeal to the gallery for justice in the event you get punched on the nose in response. It's just the expected outcome.

"

>> What if every map guaranteed to drop ONE map of similar level?
> Then maps would no longer be a valuable commodity

That much is obvious.

How about -2 levels?