End game is only sustaining red maps. Fun?

"

noisakrach wrote:

"

trixxar wrote:

I appreciate the replies, they are thoughtful and constructive. My experience after 1000 or so maps is that I do not net positive gains. I've researched Elder influence, traded for maps in my best quandrants, I simply expend my maps and end up running 7/8/9s.

Peterlerock, I respect your perspective on the game. Can you, I wonder, consider how the game comes across when you simply run maps over and over and over and it simply peters out (no pun intended) with no progress? It doesn't come across to me as good game design. Beating a level, only to have to go back and redo previous levels... how is that good design? If you lost, sure. But you beat a level, and are sent backwards? What?

I understand the need for a non-ending endgame, but maps dont feel like an afterthought that is optional completing the game. Beating the shaper does. Yes, I could purchase guardian maps until I down him, but RNG is RNG and I would have to RMT to do so. I dont RMT so its simply a dead end.

How could it be better? Lots of ways. Make maps 100% drop from bosses for the next higher tier and non-tradeable, and each time you defeat the atlas and beat the shaper it resets and the whole thing is harder like shaper orbs but with increased drops. Voila. Endless progression but it doesnt make completing the Atlas a giant game of RNG luck drops.

Thanks again for the constructive replies, I think I am done with this, and won't be leaving positive reviews for others based solely on this awful endgame mechanics. Hopefully the next expansion is based more on the original game, and not the whack-a-mole travesty that Atlas of Worlds is. Good luck and good hunting all.

Red maps drop, even for SSF player like me who cannot spend every single currency in maps.

Here is my map pool in SSF Bestiary league right now:

https://imgur.com/a/zwccZ

However I side with you on the game design thing.

As a SSF player, the fact that this game put some much emphasis on trading piss me off. The RNG fest is kinda obnoxious. I don't like the way atlas progression is designed but I still deal with it. Red maps drop but the system is not my personal liking. So I can understand that some players are getting frusrated.

You're a bigger man than i.

Found out how retarded end game mapping is for SSF and quit. was getting desperate enough to come back and so was checking the forums - thanks for reminding me of why i left in the first place.


Also there's a difference between being a solo player, and not wanting to just be handed everything by simply being able to buy it off others and have everyone else just do the same, whether you instead restrict yourself or not.

"

Whiskiz wrote:

"

noisakrach wrote:

"

trixxar wrote:

I appreciate the replies, they are thoughtful and constructive. My experience after 1000 or so maps is that I do not net positive gains. I've researched Elder influence, traded for maps in my best quandrants, I simply expend my maps and end up running 7/8/9s.

Peterlerock, I respect your perspective on the game. Can you, I wonder, consider how the game comes across when you simply run maps over and over and over and it simply peters out (no pun intended) with no progress? It doesn't come across to me as good game design. Beating a level, only to have to go back and redo previous levels... how is that good design? If you lost, sure. But you beat a level, and are sent backwards? What?

I understand the need for a non-ending endgame, but maps dont feel like an afterthought that is optional completing the game. Beating the shaper does. Yes, I could purchase guardian maps until I down him, but RNG is RNG and I would have to RMT to do so. I dont RMT so its simply a dead end.

How could it be better? Lots of ways. Make maps 100% drop from bosses for the next higher tier and non-tradeable, and each time you defeat the atlas and beat the shaper it resets and the whole thing is harder like shaper orbs but with increased drops. Voila. Endless progression but it doesnt make completing the Atlas a giant game of RNG luck drops.

Thanks again for the constructive replies, I think I am done with this, and won't be leaving positive reviews for others based solely on this awful endgame mechanics. Hopefully the next expansion is based more on the original game, and not the whack-a-mole travesty that Atlas of Worlds is. Good luck and good hunting all.

Red maps drop, even for SSF player like me who cannot spend every single currency in maps.

Here is my map pool in SSF Bestiary league right now:

https://imgur.com/a/zwccZ

However I side with you on the game design thing.

As a SSF player, the fact that this game put some much emphasis on trading piss me off. The RNG fest is kinda obnoxious. I don't like the way atlas progression is designed but I still deal with it. Red maps drop but the system is not my personal liking. So I can understand that some players are getting frusrated.

You're a bigger man than i.

Found out how retarded end game mapping is for SSF and quit. was getting desperate enough to come back and so was checking the forums - thanks for reminding me of why i left in the first place.


Also there's a difference between being a solo player, and not wanting to just be handed everything by simply being able to buy it off others and have everyone else just do the same, whether you instead restrict yourself or not.

Id like to also point out that the downfall of Diablo 3 Vanilla was because of the very same design logic that GGG employs ....leaving balance to the free market.

Don't like the drop rates of things? Try the Auction House.
Don't like the rolls of items? Try the Auction House.
Can't do X content? Try the Auction House.

Instead of, synonymously with American, allowing players to pick themselves up by their boot straps .... you instead are directed to an exchange system whereby you purchase your progress off of other people's good fortune / luck.

That might seem like a good means of making sure the availability of things is intact, but it does nothing for the achievement of said things. It certainly doesn't excuse poor game design; nor does it hide obvious manipulation of players into believing they're still playing a game.

Hiding behind a 3rd party barter system to compensate for not trying hard enough, or wanting players to be "done" sooner than when you want them to, is shameful and disrespectful of players time and good will. It's like saying you have no obligation to provide instructions or warning labels on anything, because you can just google search for sites / people who figured it out.

"

JoeShmo wrote:

Don't like the drop rates of things? Try the Auction House.
Don't like the rolls of items? Try the Auction House.
Can't do X content? Try the Auction House.

In every game that has trade in it, trading is the superior choice.
For the same reasons you buy your food instead of growing all ingredients in your garden.

"

Peterlerock wrote:

"

JoeShmo wrote:

Don't like the drop rates of things? Try the Auction House.
Don't like the rolls of items? Try the Auction House.
Can't do X content? Try the Auction House.

In every game that has trade in it, trading is the superior choice.
For the same reasons you buy your food instead of growing all ingredients in your garden.

That's not actually true, on both accounts.


Diablo 3 was objectively worse off because of trading, which is why it was removed.

Diablo 2 was objectively worse off because of trading, which is why it's economy and gameplay has never recovered.

Diablo 1 ...was a complete disaster with trading.

Every MMO has had it's economy and gameplay crushed by trading, save for Eve Online.

-----------


Don't get me wrong, trading can be a great experience, and in many moments it can make a difference in your personal situation. But as a whole, trading has never done right for a game; it has merely survived in it's compromised state for as long as the remaining players have continued need to use it for cases of absolutes ( like only ever having X because you could buy it off someone ).

Path of Exile is in no way an exception to that case.

----------

To the point about farming your own crops; it is overwhelmingly cheaper, and less time consuming, to grow your own food.

If you spent 10 hours working a job to buy $100 worth of vegetables, you could have bought thousands of dollars worth of vegetables in seeds ...and spent a fraction of that time planting and caring for them.

Don't kid yourself, or mislead people, into believing that the convenience of not having to grow your own food is in some way or shape an objectively better situation; or that we have some how evolved past the need to do so. Someone, after all, has to grow the crops for you to purchase, hence it's actually better for them to: 1. Grow their food instead of buy it. 2. Sell it to you.

It's like saying the ability to purchase the service of a car mechanic is better than having to do the work yourself. No ...it's not. It's a convenience, which you pay a premium for. And it certainly doesn't mean we've been better off for having the availability or need for that service. We could be better off with cars that need little to no maintenance.

Instead, that aspect of trade / economy is pushed off onto the consumer, instead having it taken care of, rightfully so, at the manufacturing level. Just like how GGG pushes off onto the players figuring out how to enjoy giant swaths of the game by letting them trade for it.


Diablo 3: RoS, in hindsight ( and for context ) ..is actually superior to Diablo 3 Vanilla because it no longer has trading. Because the game was no longer locked behind requiring the Auction House in order to get anywhere in the game. Players actually gained time and enjoyment by being able to do things themselves, rather than depending on other players to trade them items.

-----------


Again though, I'm not stating that Trading is the enemy, or that it doesn't work at all. The point is that trading overwhelmingly leads to a negative outcome for the masses, and a positive outcome for the few. It also means that in gaming, mechanics and gameplay is hinged on just how much trading they want you to be dependent on; and how much it's needed to cover for the faults of the game at large.

When trading is not needed, or used as a crutch for design, then it objectively leads to a better experience than the other way around.

"

JoeShmo wrote:

Id like to also point out that the downfall of Diablo 3 Vanilla was because of the very same design logic that GGG employs ....leaving balance to the free market.

Don't like the drop rates of things? Try the Auction House.
Don't like the rolls of items? Try the Auction House.
Can't do X content? Try the Auction House.

Your leaving out though that all of those were forced by the fact the difficulty was one of the worst pieces of balancing i've seen in gaming history, you needed Act3 gear to do act 2, and act 4 to do act 3 the only way anybody got past was glass cannon ranged (and constantly getting one shot)

I genuinely don't think i've ever seen worse :/

"

Peterlerock wrote:

"

JoeShmo wrote:

Don't like the drop rates of things? Try the Auction House.
Don't like the rolls of items? Try the Auction House.
Can't do X content? Try the Auction House.

In every game that has trade in it, trading is the superior choice.
For the same reasons you buy your food instead of growing all ingredients in your garden.

The most balanced MMOs or Multiplayer RPGs Ive seen have recognized some tradeable items is fun, but Ive never seen one just purely decide that main path of progression is buying off of other people.

Yes, if you couldnt trade maps, but still group, some would sell spots in maps. But thats a far cry from having to trade just to play the game at all.

Just ran six alch, corrupt T12 maps, and eleven alch, corrupt T11 maps with sextants, some cases two overlapped. Ended up with zero T13, one T12, two T11.

Map pools on higher tier maps are not sustainable. Not even open to entertaining the idea that they are, because I was already doing everything everyone says I should be doing to sustain map pools, and it didn't work.

I'm not even going to play PoE again, until GGG increases map drops.

I will play D3 each and every single league before I play one more league in PoE with shit map drops. Regardless of the content they add to the league. Map drops are shit = not even worth playing.

And now Im 24 deep in trying to buy a Tier 8 map (to push Elder influence) with no responses.

I know GGG has said that some small percent of players hit endgame maps.

Have you ever considered that its not that you cater to elite players, but you made the game system so annoying that its really not fun to play? That shouldnt engender pride in you.

I feel like Im playing some crappy game version of Craigslist where no one responds when you try to buy an item. I haven't cast an actual game skill like a spell or attack in an hour cause Im trying to buy about 8 maps.

Awesome game guys. Well done.

"

trixxar wrote:

Just ran six alch, corrupt T12 maps, and eleven alch, corrupt T11 maps with sextants, some cases two overlapped. Ended up with zero T13, one T12, two T11.

I can second this. This is about average for me after running as many maps. Except in my case I alched + chiseled + corrupted or zana modded them. Over 130 on the atlas as well. At least 1 sextant, sometimes I had as many as 3 overlapping.

The last straw for me in this league was running 4 T13s with over 130% IIQ + 3 sextants overlapping for 3 of the runs, and got not one red tier map drop. What was I expecting? A couple T14 map drops, at least. And maybe a few T11-13s.

Here's why map pools arent sustainable:

Maybe 1 in 4 T11s I ran gave a T12-13 map drop.
Half the T11s I ran didn't even give me a T11 map drop.
=
At some point I'm gonna have to buy maps.

And by the way, the odds get considerably worse the higher tiers up you get in maps than T11.

I'd say it's closer to 1 in 8 T13s drops a T14.

And this is sparing no expense in rolling the maps.

Burning up all your red maps and having to drop down to T8-10s is not sustaining red maps. I had to sell vast majority of my T10s that dropped, just to recoup some of the losses on rolling the red maps.

This is my last post on this, promise.

To the GGG Staff (and yeah I know most of you dont post on official accounts), hope you consider this;

Sometimes we make decisions based on preconceived ideas of how things should be, and not what is actually most effective/fun/best.

Is this endgame format truly the best for the greatest portion of your audience?

Is this endgame format truly fun even for those who keep playing, vs some method that is less RNG?

Are you comfortable making a game where the person can succeed at beating a hard map and then be sent back 5 levels not because of failure but because you want to gate content? I would genuinely feel bad a as designer in a game that did this. It feels... off.

Is there no way to provide slow progress without letting some players get crushed by RNG while other are rewarded? This will happen anyway with drops, but progress? Again, it feels like lazy, bad game design.



Look, if you think Im a whiney player, maybe try this. Ask an impartial friend who is in game design to play through GGG map system, and ask them what they think. Maybe give them an unlucky modifier so they dont happen to get in the top 10% of drops, put them in the bottom 25%. That seems fair. See if they have fun, see if they are willing to run 100 maps just to get T15 maps, drop back to T7, and try again?

Thanks to all the constructive people, and the non-constructive. All viewpoints are relative but real.

Good hunting out there.

___

PS - There is a non-zero chance that the free to play model failed and GGG realized that if they gated content by drop rates, people would have to buy currency and then spend currency on items, so they would feed they families by selling currency to their own game and manufacturing maps to sell as well. And so most of the currency sellers are actually GGG, as well as the high end maps and items like one-handers with 600 dps. Those are selling for the equivalent of $85 dollars, more than a cost of most games. If thats true, then I understand GGG, you have to put food on the table for the kids. But you could be more honest and just ditch FTP. If you had a better model and charged $60 Id pay.