[Research] Map increased item quantity (IIQ% ) and its role in map sustainability

"

Zed_ wrote:

I. I'm not sure what you're suggesting here, GGG doesn't want us to figure things out on our own in this case, instead they have clearly stated that map iiq does affect map drops. Your hypothesis is then that there is a bug in effect, I guess?

II. A Waste Pool dropping from a Waste Pool is not necessarily the same probability as a Residence dropping from a Residence, and a Springs dropping from a Plateau is not the same probability as a Cells dropping from a Plateau, yet you are simply adding these together and drawing premature conclusions.

III. Different map types have different base number of monsters in them, your calculation does not seem to control for this in any way.

IV. Your claim that the difference seen in the higher map tier is explained by pack size differences is not supported by any calculations and looks more like a hunch.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate your enthusiasm doing all this but this seems closer to disinformation to me reinforcing the preconceptions of some players than actual evidence for anything.

1. My hypothesis is that high IIQ has less of an effect on sustaining mid-tier maps than previously thought.
2. My point was that trading up -3 takes too many maps to be effectively reflected in a research consisting of 424 samples.
3. I don't have any data concerning average monster population of certain maps hence my research didn't take this specific factor into account.
4. Before I translated my raw data into any hypothesis I calculated the influence of pack size on potential map drops and since it only confirmed the popular belief I didn't feel it was necessary to include it in the recap of my research.

"

cmphx wrote:

Thanks for this interesting analysis !

are you sure ~200 maps are enough to conclude things ? i would rather trust an analysis of 4000+ maps than 200, since the variance in map drops seems to be very high

No, I'm fully aware I"m scratching the surface here. I'll try to conduct a much broader research in 2.2 looking into many more factors. Feedback from players like Zed as much as various redditors and folks responsible for Path of Maps helps me determine what factors exactly should be reflected in my follow-up research.

The defense force is always going to say "not enough data" and "rng is rng" so I feel compelled to post here and thank you for providing us with SOMETHING. You did a bunch of work you didn't have to do just to try to help out our community. Thank you.

People can dismiss any data they want - there are people who dispute the validity of dinosaurs, global climate change, and our planet being billions of years old - but it takes a lot more work to provide actual data.

My takeaway from this is simple - it matches my experience, almost to a T. If we consider the effect of map IIQ on currency drops and wealth generation, the topic becomes much more complex, but I have always felt that packsize and around 45-50% IIQ returns around the same for me as packsize and 100% IIQ, if we consider ONLY map drops.

I strongly dislike the way map mods have always been handled. Extremely hard maps have always been way harder than they are worth. I really think after a certain point (Maybe 110% IIQ or something) the map should guarantee a same level map drop somewhere in the level. Otherwise, people will realize they can do what I do, have very low risk, and grow the same map pool.

Firstly thank you for making the effort to do some research and i read it with great interest.

However I have done 10s of 1000s of maps over the life of the game and have come to the conclusion that 2 things and 2 things only effect the rate at which maps drop and only one of them you have any control over.

They are the RNG seed that is created when the map is opened(that is to say the hidden drop integer) and the one we can control pack size, NOTHING else matters to such a decree as to change the rate in a measurable amount.

So if all you want is more maps,increasing pack size and clear speed is the best you can do.However it does need mentioning that un-modded white maps seem to have a penalty on them which is likely built in to the seed.


A good data set would be the same map with the same mods with 3 data points of 0, 50, 100 quantity(quantity on the player ofc).

Pack size and Magic Monsters MULTIPLY IIQ on the map. It's not that IIQ doesn't have an effect - otherwise neither would pack size. It's all about how many drops happen. 15% pack size is, without IIQ otherwise, exactly 15% IIQ. It's not complicated, but you sure are trying to make it so. Seriously - IIQ HAS to have an effect, because guess what - otherwise, white maps would return a sustained top-tier map pool, and guess what - they don't.

Packsize OK, double packsize you are god. IIQ doesn't affect map drops...

"

maxor wrote:

Firstly thank you for making the effort to do some research and i read it with great interest.

However I have done 10s of 1000s of maps over the life of the game and have come to the conclusion that 2 things and 2 things only effect the rate at which maps drop and only one of them you have any control over.

They are the RNG seed that is created when the map is opened(that is to say the hidden drop integer) and the one we can control pack size, NOTHING else matters to such a decree as to change the rate in a measurable amount.

So if all you want is more maps,increasing pack size and clear speed is the best you can do.However it does need mentioning that un-modded white maps seem to have a penalty on them which is likely built in to the seed.


A good data set would be the same map with the same mods with 3 data points of 0, 50, 100 quantity(quantity on the player ofc).

EXACTLY what I have been seeing this league. Pack size and clear speed is all you can control. I'll also go so far as to add that chiselling/quality appears to only affect the items dropping and has zero to do with map drops as well. Previous leagues I could have sworn chisels made a huge difference, this league not so much if at all.

Just my 2 cents of course before the, "you have no evidence" crowd shouts us all down.

funny it worked out for me like this too. Crafted for a while high iiq ... and couldn t really get over t7. After a while i was sick of spending so much on shity t6 maps and just alt the maps with packsize and i went up to t11 pretty fast. At that point i just kept crafting packsize and regaled it and could easy sustain t10/11 maps.
Couldn t really tell if it was just strange coincidence but this little reserch of yours tells the same story.

good idea, but sadly your sample size is statistically insignificant, and without this significance, any conclusions you draw are gonna be pretty inaccurate.

"

conall88 wrote:

good idea, but sadly your sample size is statistically insignificant, and without this significance, any conclusions you draw are gonna be pretty inaccurate.

His sample size is in fact statistically significant. Please provide your statistical significance calculations if you want really to prove otherwise. Otherwise please ignore this as 400 maps is already statistically significant.