Unidentified maps should be easier to make

Building up my map pool is tedious, but I find unidentified maps to help because of the quantity bonus when doing maps that are non-threatening (66-70s), and don't warrant burning currency to find good mods like 71+ maps, when you start alching and chaosing.

However unidentified maps are hard to make, for instance you would need 3 blue 68s to make an unidentified 69, a rate that is totally not worth it.

Why can't we just hand the vendor a map and a transmute or alch and he give us an unidentified version of that map? Unidentified maps feel more rewarding and fun to me.

Trade values of various maps (Domination, rough estimates)
66 maps - 5 Alterations
67 maps - 1 Alch (8-9 Alterations)
68 maps - 2 Alch
69 maps - 1 Chaos (2.5 Alch)
70 maps - 2 Chaos
71 maps - 4 Chaos
72 maps - 6 Chaos
73 maps - 9 Chaos
74 maps - no data
75 maps - 30 Chaos
76 maps - 2 Exalt (50 Chaos)
77 maps - 2 Exalt
78 maps - 3 Exalt

Conclusion: The vendor recipes for maps should be
2 maps of the same name = 1 map with +1 level
instead of 3 maps of the same name.
It would save players a lot of frustration involved with map trading, without really changing values much.

I don't think there needs to be a change in the 3 maps = 1 of higher level.

But if you feel that you can take whatever the mods may be, there should be an easier way to go in blind.

Maybe something like put the white map into the lab slot with an transmute/alch and activate it = unidentified magic/rare stat map portals.... finally a use for those other 3 slots!

"

Gravethought wrote:

I don't think there needs to be a change in the 3 maps = 1 of higher level.

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough.

That formula also means:
3 magic maps of the same name = 1 unidentified magic map of +1 level
3 rare maps of the same name = 1 unidentified rare map of +1 level

So changing the 3 to a 2 would definitely make it easier to create unidentified maps.

I realize that, but im saying combining maps feels silly after the 66 and 67 tiers unless you really hate a certain map, even if it was 2 to 1 I wouldn't want to do it as its a huge waste of resources. It's better to just run both 68's than make a 69 in my opinion, even with your solution.

I think there should be a way to go in blind for the bonus without having to waste resources at all. You are handicapping yourself for the quantity bonus (and you still might get some low quantity mods, an additional risk), so why do you have to blow several maps just to craft a unid one, it shouldnt be two or three, it should be one.

"

Gravethought wrote:

I realize that, but im saying combining maps feels silly after the 66 and 67 tiers unless you really hate a certain map, even if it was 2 to 1 I wouldn't want to do it as its a huge waste of resources. It's better to just run both 68's than make a 69 in my opinion, even with your solution.

The trade value of two white 69s is roughly equal to one white 70; same with 70->71. You could easily Alch such maps, run them if the mods are great, and if the mods suck vendor them instead of using Chaos, then run the unidentified product.

If I'm running unidentified maps, especially rare maps, there are no crap mods.....I'm doing the damn map! The odds of getting a higher map is MUCH greater running the two maps individually than combining them.

I admit your proposal makes it more reasonable and a step in the right direction, but is still too cost inefficient.

Also the trade value is dictated by the usefulness of said map. Who is to say that if you only need two maps to combine, they won't get more scarce and drive prices up? I don't like buying and selling maps anyway, I wanna run them!

Scrotie, something just occurred to me.

We are talking about the end game progression system and you are trying to adjust the recipe to the trade value of the maps. To me that is everything that is wrong with the system.

I personally hate maps being able to be sold and bought at all. If anything needed to be soulbound in this game, I feel that maps are it.

For instance, tonight I found a bringer of rain whilst doing some unid sewer maps. Now if I sold it and bought maps with the currency, I could literally take a super mario style blue level warp pipe straight into a half decent map pool. That hardly seems right. Other people might have grinded away at maps twice as long and not be any closer to having even a single 73-75 map.

I guess what I'm getting at is it's already enough rng that map drops are random, but selling and buying......progression......just flat out feels wrong. It's no wonder about the RMT goings you find out about at the top of the ladders.

I realize that PoE has taken a unique approach by linking progression with trade and the economy....... but I wonder with all the problems it brings if it is the right one.

"

Gravethought wrote:

We are talking about the end game progression system and you are trying to adjust the recipe to the trade value of the maps. To me that is everything that is wrong with the system.

I wouldn't really say that is accurate; what I was doing was checking trade values to see if the costs from one tier to the next were more than doubling at any point, in order to make sure a better vendor formula wouldn't significantly interfere with current trade values. That's not adjusting the formula to the economy, that's adjusting the formula after making sure the economy wouldn't take collateral damage.

"

Gravethought wrote:

I personally hate maps being able to be sold and bought at all. If anything needed to be soulbound in this game, I feel that maps are it.

In my case it's a matter of degree. I am not willing to go to the extreme of "they shouldn't be bought or sold at all," but I'd like it if trading felt less like a mandatory part of map management. Hence my suggested formula; it allows players to forego low-map for high-map trading and just vendor formula instead.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Trade values of various maps (Domination, rough estimates)
66 maps - 5 Alterations
67 maps - 1 Alch (8-9 Alterations)
68 maps - 2 Alch
69 maps - 1 Chaos (2.5 Alch)
70 maps - 2 Chaos
71 maps - 4 Chaos
72 maps - 6 Chaos
73 maps - 9 Chaos
74 maps - no data
75 maps - 30 Chaos
76 maps - 2 Exalt (50 Chaos)
77 maps - 2 Exalt
78 maps - 3 Exalt

Conclusion: The vendor recipes for maps should be
2 maps of the same name = 1 map with +1 level
instead of 3 maps of the same name.
It would save players a lot of frustration involved with map trading, without really changing values much.

No, vendor recipes need to be much less interesting than trading with player, it's fine how it is atm imho.