Maps, Affixes, Risk:Reward and You

"

thepmrc wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

thepmrc wrote:

Seriously, remove the 'mandatory' mods.

Or just nerf them until they aren't mandatory anymore. Which is preferable; we need as much map variety as possible.

how would you suggest 'nerfing' them?

and what would be the point?

I guess you could make them give -% quality in an attempt to balance them, but they seem so very unnecessary as they don't actually add ANY variety. More of the same is not variety, and that is exactly what these mods are, the same shit just more of it.

Massive/Labyrinthine - you actually have a good point there. Don't see any way in which those mods make the map more dangerous.

Hordes - It's actually possible for increased monster density to make things scarier. This one can stay; might still need a -% quantity penalty.

Champions - Actually changes the map signficantly; granted, the loot rewards greatly surpass the added risk, but it's still noticeably harder. Definitely can stay (with a penalty).

I can see that argument, but in general it always seems that the intrinsic pack size / champion rolls on the map are far more deterministic than the map mods. The number of champions and the pack sizes are already very random. The most champions I have ever seen in maps were on maps without the champion mod. The variance added by the mod is rarely felt in my experience.

We definitely agree that the mods in their current implementation are bad for the mapping system though. That is the important thing. GGG usually finds a more elegant solution to things than what is suggested on the forums, it is more or less just up to us to point out what is causing the issue. I hope they can come through again with a good creative solution.

Will be revisiting this in the near future after I've managed to properly playtest maps on the Onslaught League. Need to provide Carl with proper feedback and some of it ties to this as well.

"

Lyralei wrote:

Will be revisiting this in the near future after I've managed to properly playtest maps on the Onslaught League. Need to provide Carl with proper feedback and some of it ties to this as well.

It would be super cool for GGG to take notice of this discussion and make rewards for maps in line with the real difficulty of a set of affixes.

To be honest, I am also in favour of increasing map drop rate (no fun dropping from running 70+IIQ 71 maps to grinding 68;/), though introducing map IIQ bonuses from affix synergies could be a remedy for it.

Self-reminder to return to this and update accordingly. Choice is still lacking in terms of risk:reward and options as far as maps affixes are concerned. I did not manage to playtest maps in Onslaught unfortunately.

I think some players have explored the options of giving downsides to current mandatory affixes and I'd like to review that again. Don't know if I have the time to fully draw up a full potential list of affix combinations, but we'll see.

At any rate, while it is great that maps exist as a currency sink..it is not so that people opt to do the easiest and lowest risk maps (as per Scrotie's older posts) and still get the highest returns out of them.

Optimal risk:reward ratios should give players meaningful choices to make beyond the set standard maps+exp optimizing paradigm such that a good player will question if he wishes to gamble on the internal pack rolls for a low risk but potentially great exp return or otherwise tackle a high risk boss with a guaranteed greater EXP gain. As such, the marginal benefit must justify the risk but not alienate alternatives.

It also raises interesting questions as to builds designed to tackle specific maps and how it may prove beneficial to players with specialized builds and incentivize more in-depth theorycrafting with regards to non-conventional builds drawing people away from the current meta (where such builds can not and will not risk doing said maps). Think Guild Wars and how some builds were designed to tackle some content.