Biggest Problem with Mapping: Inconsistent Risk to Reward

"

Nephalim wrote:

"

Delmas wrote:

And it should be noted that maze is not the best prefix for all maps. I now suspect your beliefs may be a byproduct of you rolling your maps poorly.

I am confounded as to how i managed to spend 2 pages debating with someone who has utterly not a clue about high level mapping or the current state of the game.

Sorry to break it to you but there was no debate here. You giving your "feelings" and stating your opinions of my knowledge of the "state of the game" while ignoring most of what I said as well as what most other have said and done is not a debate. Its you being frivolous. Most of your comments seem to be approached in a very glib manner. You continue to make an extraordinary claims with zero evidence.

In interests of not derailing OPs thread

"

Nephalim wrote:

the global map drop rates do not and should not be increased, this is the wrong direction. I think the point is that for remarkably hard maps with impossibly dangerous affix combinations should have a bigger effect on the amount of maps that drop and maze should no longer be a requirement.

I'd like low level maps with dangerous affixes to still be challenging and rewarding while high level maps are challenging intrinsically and, if you can handle dangerous affixes, even more rewarding.

I'm going to agree on that point, not that higher level maps aren't challenging just based on the monster level effects on the formulas, but they should be made harder! And then, because they're harder, they can be made more rewarding!

Then, y'know, groups could continue to steamroll them, while soloists are locked out of a great deal more than they already are. Better a cost barrier than some ridiculous gameplay one. While I do agree that there MIGHT be a call for more challenge, how much more is debatable.

"

Kirielis wrote:

Guaranteed progress/stagnation is BAD. Just saying. As long as there's a chance to upgrade, there MUST be a chance to downgrade right along with it, or we'd all be running 77s all damn day. Do you seriously think I'd never have just bought one shipyard to guarantee mapping 77s for the rest of time? Hell, I'd stack spellblock and face down Shrine Piety if it guaranteed me a 77 at the end of it.

So, playing devil's advocate, what if it isn't guaranteed progress as much as guaranteed access. Map progress could function like storymode progress in that you gain access to better loot and as your character improves you can progress to more difficult zones or in this case maps.

"

Then, y'know, groups could continue to steamroll them, while soloists are locked out of a great deal more than they already are.

Isn't the main obstacle to high level solo mapping an economic barrier? Solo players need to pay 3.5x currency to reap the same return as 6 man groups. Ideally solo and multiplayer mapping difficulty and reward would be seamless and scale accordingly - then what would be wrong with gated high maps in difficulty?

I have no problem with that if build parity is also encouraged.

I'm all for difficulty gating as long as build parity holds. But I'd rather have cost gating than difficulty gating as long as build parity is not going to hold.

This is because I have character builds who already faceroll most existing content, whether group or solo, literally any map any mod (but I reserve the right to skip Piety/Megaera/Dominus.) And because a great deal of my quirky builds already have map mods from the existing pool that they intensely dislike and will not run solo. You want to gate that further? Uh, no thanks.

"

I'm all for difficulty gating as long as build parity holds. But I'd rather have cost gating than difficulty gating as long as build parity is not going to hold.

That's a fair point. I think given those two options I would have to agree.

Map changes announced, bump.