A Message to Everyone

"

Moosifer wrote:

I was wondering how this heated argument turned into an actually good discussion, now I remember why, you weren't around. Don't worry, I'll get the 76 data too, already have about 10 gathered and rerolling so should be doing them in a week or two when I get over 20 built up. Each level of data has had the same results, I just think instead of running cycling 3 levels you might have to do 4-5 to keep 78s in the mix. But of course you still have no idea what I mean when I say that because you think I mean literally running 3 maps of 3 different levels.

Keep the whining up, I'll have stats to back up my theories while you go buy maps and get frustrated you can't sustain any.

That was a nice way to dodge argument provision, I have to give you props for that.

Get 76 and 77 and 78 data.

If you bothered to explain thoroughly your cycling method it would be much better. Whic you still haven't although I've asked twice.

If you're not running 3 maps of 3 levels, why are you calling it "cycling"? Because now I think (from this said up) that you put random level maps from your 73-75 pool.


Bottom line, you've been discussing map drops in the area you've never been in. (talking about map pools and elongated runs in that map area)


You have stats to back up theories which have nothing to do with 76+ maps, and therefore they are irrelevant.

See you in 2-3 months of dedicated playing with the info, I'll be waiting for a confirmed tactic of how not to lose currency on leveling, and if it proves true, I'll provide you with some kind of reward in game, for your help.

Ok, as you're fixated on the number of maps to run because it's blowing your mind, I'll spell out my actual method.

I roll 12 maps, because I'm OCD and it's a row in my stash tab, of whatever level I'm running at that time. Before today it was 73-75 maps. So, in this example it will be 73s. When I complete those, I know I'm going to get about 3-4 74s and I already have 74s built up from doing 72s, 73s and 74s (the maps I did before adding 75s and dropping 72s). So then I do 12 74s, then 12 75s. The number of maps you run doesn't matter too much as long as you do enough to get enough maps at the next level and have enough padding to avoid going broke. Once I get 24 of the next level (76s in this case) I'll move up, starting with the 76s then going back to 74s, repeating the process until I have enough 77s. I might have to go through each level of maps 3-4 times I always have built up enough of the next level to allow for progression.

Also, doing this many I found I don't really need chisels, so I only chisel when doing maps higher than I have for a little change of scenery or to finish a level quickly (especially when doing 74s as things can go south against dom/vaal very quickly).

While I don't have the data to support 77 and 78s, 100 76s is enough to give some ideas. You still get about 2 maps per every run but with each map that's lower the chances of finding -2 and above is lowered a bit. With 76s atm, about 45% are -3 or below. I assume this will go up with 77s and be even higher with 78s as they lose +2 and +1/+2 options, so that 30% or so will end up being -3.

So, I'll repeat again, I think my cycling 3 level maps are great for mid level but when getting to 76 or higher I think you'll need to cycle 4, possibly 5 tiers of maps. It's not what people want to hear but would you rather be running 75+ for the cost of alch/chaos or running 78s all the time by buying them, chiseling, alching, chaosing for perfection (possibly divining/exalting) to hope and pray you hit that 30% chance of another 78 dropping.

There's enough data to make this hypothesis, you're just blinding yourself to try and win a stupid argument, maybe try to come off as elite as if you possibly have more experience than I do.

Oh, and dumb dumb, just because I haven't logged many 77+ (there's 100 76s logged btw) doesn't mean I haven't done ANY AT ALL. There's almost 30 and that's only since I started keeping track.

"

tinko92 wrote:

Get 76 and 77 and 78 data.

Don't think that's possible, I gathered he was talking about sustained mapping all this time and those are impossible to sustain, the roof is too close. You might run a few without currency investment but that's pretty much it.

Any comment on this? Like it, hate it, meh?

"

By the way, there was a nice idea some time ago about another source of mapping, balanced to exist next to the current one.

In short, it said maps could also be randomly found as portal stones in areas, finding such a stone would lead you to a map area a level higher than the one you found it on, and that one would also have the chance to spawn a portal stone taking you to an area another level higher, so you could dynamically chain it as long as your luck holds. They could also start pretty early to alleviate levelling boredom, probably as soon as cruel.

Would this be a solution?

1. Map Drops are removed from the game or as rare as uniques
2. You can access lvl 66 maps just by clicking on the eternal laboratory
3. when you defeat 66 map boss, you get a garanteed 67 map.
4. when you defeat 67 boss, you get a garanteed 68 map.
5. ...

If you don't die and can kill all the bosses, you get your infinite endgame content.
If you die, you have to play with another player (but still dont get maps) or restart through the lower maps.

---

Same goes for "Crafting".

I'd rather see Eternal Orb removed and when I use an Exalt, a window pops up asking me:
"Gained >Reflect 6 Dmg to melee attackers<. Do you want to keep this?"
If yes, fine, if no, Exalt lost, but the Item is not wasted...

Me and a friend found a low rolled lioneye glare in a graveyard map (lvl 70).

We sold it for 3-4 ex I think...

All you idiots who gamble and lose come to the forums and whine whine whine whine whine.

You think youre whining about the system and how it needs to change.

You're all actually JUST WHINING ABOUT BAD LUCK.

Go outside and take a stroll through a meadow, walk your dog, ride your bicycle, hug your neighbor, remember what makes you enjoy life and stop this incessant idiocy.

You're all completely, utterly, hopelessly wrong, and unable to see beyond the haze of your own misfortune and greed.

I pity you poor souls.

"

Awfeel wrote:

Even Diablo 2 was not like this, and MTG (Magic: The Gathering) creator Richard Garfield, although not enforcing what he has said, even has gone over how the segregation of gameplay based on how large someone's wallet was shouldn't exist. (even though he could EASILY reprint the cards that are currently worth so much decreasing their value)

Those expensive cards aren't available in the most common MTG formats. Only in a very select subset of formats does "wallet size" segregate players.

And the reasons the cards don;t get reprinted is because they are brokenly powerful and generally banned or restricted anyway (every one of the power nine).

"

Autocthon wrote:

"

Awfeel wrote:

Even Diablo 2 was not like this, and MTG (Magic: The Gathering) creator Richard Garfield, although not enforcing what he has said, even has gone over how the segregation of gameplay based on how large someone's wallet was shouldn't exist. (even though he could EASILY reprint the cards that are currently worth so much decreasing their value)

Those expensive cards aren't available in the most common MTG formats. Only in a very select subset of formats does "wallet size" segregate players.

And the reasons the cards don;t get reprinted is because they are brokenly powerful and generally banned or restricted anyway (every one of the power nine).

There are still expensive cards ( 4*25€ just to get 4 powerful ones is something, and it's just 4 within the deck ), MtG is not F2P though.

"

Moosifer wrote:

Are actual argument is mostly worthless because we aren't working towards a goal. I'm standing with the status quo, you're against. I'm sure both of us have people on our sides, but the people with the loudest voice are those against it.

Actually I am working towards a goal. PoE has significant shortcomings which spoils my enjoyment of a game that I want to be able to enjoy.

"

Even in the game's current state maps are optional. I just had a long argument with someone else in this thread about it. Game in it's current state isn't meant for 85+ without a serious investment. Any alternative to maps would have the same results just be less varied, i.e. more boring.

No one said that lvl 100 should be gotten without any kind of serious investment. (However, I would like to point out that when diablo 2 went from 1.08 to 1.09, the ladder reset had lvl 99 characters on it within 72 hours. The vast majority of ladder characters did not reach that point, however, and I never ever saw a complaint that lvling to 99 was too "easy").

Furthermore, maps aren't optional. People kill monsters not only to find items, but also to gain experience in order to level up. The levelling process starts off decently enough, but once you get to lvl 70 or so the return on your time investment drastically drops off to the point where the return on the investment is so small that the investment ceases to make rational sense. (in this perspective, rational sense = worthwhile amount of progress achieved after a gaming session. If this value is too low, motivation to play the game will drop off and the player will no longer consider experience gain to be a valid incentive to play.) From this perspective maps and map content is mandatory to continue enjoying the game.

And once again I have to stress that it is incredibly short-sighted of the devs to make access to map content contingent upon activity inside map content. It creates a barrier of frustration which is entirely out of proportion with the perceived benefit to mapping (i.e. being able to play with experience rewards that don't drop off into the abyss).

"

BUT, I do think if they improved map affixes so there were more difficult mods, that difficult combinations gave higher IIQ when together, and basically what they envisioned when putting this together. The hardest maps give the biggest reward. At this time there's not a large IIQ difference between an easy map or hard one, nor are there much noticeable difference between drops. I think if this is improved both sides will enjoy mapping more. Removing massive/maze was a big step forward, I just hope they don't wait almost another 2 years to make further improvements.

I'm not in this thread to discuss non-map drops inside map content. I think drops in general need to be addressed but that's an entirely different can of worms and I don't want to draw this thread into an off-topic conversation. Suffice it to say that it's generally a good game design principle that anticipated reward should be properly balanced against risk.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Autocthon wrote:

"

Awfeel wrote:

Even Diablo 2 was not like this, and MTG (Magic: The Gathering) creator Richard Garfield, although not enforcing what he has said, even has gone over how the segregation of gameplay based on how large someone's wallet was shouldn't exist. (even though he could EASILY reprint the cards that are currently worth so much decreasing their value)

Those expensive cards aren't available in the most common MTG formats. Only in a very select subset of formats does "wallet size" segregate players.

And the reasons the cards don;t get reprinted is because they are brokenly powerful and generally banned or restricted anyway (every one of the power nine).

There are still expensive cards ( 4*25€ just to get 4 powerful ones is something, and it's just 4 within the deck ), MtG is not F2P though.

And remember that constructed tournaments are generally an investment and a relatively minor portion of the population.