a new mapping method - map fragments

Honestly? I'd rather have unique, really common maps for that function (I mean, short maps). I don't know, going to the realm of Beyond? Sounds fun to fight something like Haast.

Map fragments should be for something bigger (like Atziri).

But anyway, it's not like your idea is bad.

thats not a bad idea. short expeditions into the Beyond. i like how that could be made lore friendly as well.

bump. i added a simple visual illustration of this idea to the main post, and here http://i.imgur.com/9VUh03d.png

Love this idea, however I have another vision of it - maps drops in fragments large or small, they can be annealed to make a bigger and more complete map.

A dune(1) is a tiny dune map. It can be annealed to another dune(1) to create a linear shape of dune zones. It can further be annealed to a dune(4) to create a spoon shape dune map :) The higher the map number, the more possibility final map boss is encountered. However the area level should be limited(such as dune(36)) to prevent loading crash.

A map with affixes can be annealed to a blank map to create a larger map with affixes. Two map with different affixes will roll into a totally different map with a very complicated algorithm...

"

Heartsease wrote:

Love this idea, however I have another vision of it - maps drops in fragments large or small, they can be annealed to make a bigger and more complete map.

A dune(1) is a tiny dune map. It can be annealed to another dune(1) to create a linear shape of dune zones. It can further be annealed to a dune(4) to create a spoon shape dune map :) The higher the map number, the more possibility final map boss is encountered. However the area level should be limited(such as dune(36)) to prevent loading crash.

A map with affixes can be annealed to a blank map to create a larger map with affixes. Two map with different affixes will roll into a totally different map with a very complicated algorithm...

i dont know how i feel about bigger maps, those could take hours and with only 6 portals could be more trouble than they're worth. other than that, i dont see a problem with it, it would allow players to allot a specific amount of time that they would be willing to dedicate for a map (roughly) though the amount of maps required to make a dunes (36) would be a lot, and i feel that after the couple hours spent in that map the player should be rewarded more, especially if they only have 6 portals. furthermore, how would map mods work out? 2 rogue exiles for a map 10x as big as normal is kinda unfair, and rolling pack size, magic, rare, etc on one of those huge maps would certaintly be unfair if you would normally have to roll them individually otherwise.

There are two main factors at play in the OP's feedback.

1. Session length.

Players have a variety of time lengths which tthey expect a play session to last. For players intent on playing for hours at a time, huge maps feel a lot more satisfying than small ones. But some players would like to hop on PoE during lunch breaks or before going to class, and for those players a short map would be far more satisfying. By which I mean feasible.

At first glance, it would seem PoE would be able to handle such variety using its map system. For example, imagine if a Shipyard map was 40% smaller/faster to run than it is now, but had a raw droprate 60% higher than it is now (with no changes to Shrines). Players would still spend roughly the same amount of time in each tileset, but they could save Shipyards for short sessions and Shrines for longer sessions.

If map tilesets were spread equally instead of concentrated at the lowest maplevels, players could be offered a wide variety of session lengths in this manner.

However, this falls apart because of...

2. Currency design.

Maps should and do serve as a renewable currency sink. Maps are the game's premiere consumable and this ideally suited to the purpose. Some people don't like this element of currency design, but I consider it an absolutely vital anti-inflation measure.

However, there is an element of currency design which has perplexed me for a long time, and that is: why the fixed cost? It takes just as many Chaos Orbs to reroll a level 77 item as it does to reroll a level 20 item. Which means level 20 items are never rerolled by any serious min-maxer. Among competitive players, orbs tend to either get used on maps or enter the trading economy, where they eventually find their way towards that level 77+ gear in an attempt to create mirror-worthy objects.

This is frustrating to many because they are nowhere near the "mirror-worthy or bust" level of gear progression, and thus will never feel good about using orbs on their own gear.

This frustration could easily have been prevented by introducing variable currency costs instead of a fixed "one per use" system. I detail this idea more in my article on an alternative currency system.

Back to maps: this "one per use" aspect of currency is what kills the idea of variable map size in the water. Instead of having the ability to spend currency proportional to session length, it would be the same currency cost per map regardless of size. Thus only the largest maps of each level would be considered viable.

So inn conclusion, what could have been an opportunity for maps to accommodate a variety of different session lengths was screwed over by a shortsighted and overly simplistic currency design.

ive mentioned this a few times earlier, but my solution to this is either batch crafting, or not having to spend any amount of currency on map fragments at all, and only roll the main map which breaks the mods down to 1/4th of their power per map fragment. one of my intents with this idea was to make crafting maps easier, not harder. i want the same amount of investment going into one 77 map as four 77 map fragments, both time and currency wise.

So what you're saying is that the solution is my "dust" idea I linked to?

not necessarily, as you may have read in my comment on your thread i don't completely agree with that kind of currency system. instead of being able to use one chaos orb multiple times via breaking it apart into chaos dust, i would rather have it be crafting multiple fragments at the same time via one chaos, or, not even having to craft the maps (they would be good enough as white) and have that be part of the trade off for breaking a map and not being able to get the really good rolls like exiles and pack size

Maps should never be good enough as white. At least not for levels 70 and up. The reason is simple: variety. Players should be encouraged to run a variety of map affixes for more variable, less stale play. So it is desirable for the game to essentially force yellow maps for sustainment.