Thoughts on the Design of the Map System
|
Dev Diary: End-game Maps
" " I'm a big believer in the core concept of the map system. I see great potential in it, and definitely would not prefer a reversion to Maelstrom of Chaos or some other version of the endgame. However, the current design of the map system has failed to live up to the intent as expressed in the Dev Diary all that time ago. The key areas of failure are:
It's important to look at the maps system as sustainable endgame content first. The primary draw of maps is that it provides a necessary function for endgame content: a high potential degree of randomness. Randomness in content is the key to endgame replayability, allowing players to vary the particular situations their characters slog through in as many different ways as possible, keeping things fresh and non-repetitive for as long as possible. This, above all else, should be the goal of endgame content: to keep things fresh and non-repetitive. Maps hold the capability to allow this to happen, while still giving the player some degree over control of said randomness by using the orb system. However, the effectiveness of this design is reduced if players are encouraged to roll the same or similar affixes over and over again. The more players use currency to ensure specific affixes or to avoid other specific affixes, the more the practical affix pool is shrunk. To the extent this occurs, it transforms the mapping system more into an endgame currency sink (using multiple Chaos to ensure the proper affixes), and less into properly random, replayable endgame content (less affixes are used, meaning less random). In other words, the ideal player behavior to ensure endgame situational diversity is more "Alch and go" and less heavy currency investment into maps. This is not to say the highest levels of endgame maps should require no Chaos. For example, Alchs and Chaos currently have a 7/12 chance of creating a four-affix rare, a 4/12 chance of creating a five-affix rare, and a 1/12 chance of creating a six-affix rare. In order to encourage the most varied endgame experiences, players should be incentivized towards running the highest maps with six (or more) affixes, which would naturally be a rather significant Chaos currency sink. However, note the emphasis here: the intent is to get players to run the maximum number of affixes, not to sink more Chaos from the economy; the currency sink is incidental. Note that any form of guaranteed map drops take away from this effect. For example, imagine that each map boss always dropped a map of the same level. Players would no longer be as incentivized to add additional affixes to their maps, and thus would have a less variable, more boring, and more "optimized" endgame experience. Instead, affixes should increase probabilities such that the developer-intended level of map quantity has an expected sustainment, rather than a certain one, to always encourage players to exceed the developer-intended level for sustainment in order to advance. In order to achieve a more "Alch and go" situation for mid maps, and a more "six-affix rather than specific affix" situation for high maps, affix balance is paramount, particularly in terms of the quantity rewarded. The amount of rerolls based on sustainment should be kept to an absolute minimum, and instead rerolls should be utilized primarily based on challenge. Using a Chaos on a map (other than to generate a necessary five or six affixes) should be seen as a concession of defeat to an affix which is particularly difficult for a particular build (or builds, in group play), and used as little as possible as a means of narrowing the randomness of the affix pool in order to improve reward. As such, it is imperative that the number of (rather than particular) affixes on a map is the primary indicator of how much quantity the map will have, and thus a five-affix map always has more quantity than a four-affix map, and so on. This requires some degree of standardization of affix values. An example: all prefixes to 17 to 20% quantity and all suffixes to 21 to 24% quantity; this would mean four-affix maps would have 72-92% quantity, five-affix 93-112%, and six-affix 114-132%. Obviously, there is no place for affixes such as "of Hordes" under such a system. In terms of risk/reward, the above example would allow eight different quantity values for affixes — four for prefixes, four for suffixes — to give the harder affixes marginally greater rewards. However, it's only marginal because the primary purpose of the endgame map affix system should be providing variable play, through comprehensive randomness... with risk/reward as a distant second. If anything, the currency system itself provides a better risk/reward system, as players who can handle the more difficult affixes don't need to reroll them; a Chaos unused is a Chaos earned for the take-all-comers maprunner. In terms of the design of the affixes themselves, it is important to design affixes to be ran by the builds which have difficulty with them, as opposed to designing affixes to be rerolled by the builds which have difficulty with them. For example, Blood Magic is a terrible affix, because the builds which have trouble with it — usually, Chaos Inoculation builds — have no hope of actually running the map at all. This means they reroll the affix and it is effectively removed from the pool of affixes actually ran, leading to a more repetitive endgame. Here's a list of suggested map affixes; if I haven't included it, that's because I don't believe it should exist. Some of the affixes below offer "virtual" quantity, such as % more Magic monsters, and thus would require special tuning to get a "feel" similar to an appropriate quantity level as described above.
Spoiler
1. Monsters gain (60 to 80)% of Physical Damage as Extra Fire Damage; (25 to 35)% increased Monster Fire Damage
2. Monsters gain (60 to 80)% of Physical Damage as Extra Cold Damage; (25 to 35)% increased Monster Cold Damage 3. Monsters gain (60 to 80)% of Physical Damage as Extra Lightning Damage; (25 to 35)% increased Monster Lightning Damage 4. (30 to 45)% increased Monster Critical Strike Multiplier {note: base multiplier is 130%} 5. Monsters gain a Power Charge on non-Critical Strike 6. Monsters gain a Frenzy Charge when nearby Monsters are Slain 7. Monsters gain an Endurance Charge when Hit 8. (50 to 60)% to Monster Fire Resistance; (10 to 12)% to Monster maximum Fire Resistance {note: I believe no monster has over 25% base of any one elemental resistance that I'm aware of, but there can be other factors such as monster Purity aura} 9. (50 to 60)% to Monster Cold Resistance; (10 to 12)% to Monster maximum Cold Resistance 10. (50 to 60)% to Monster Lightning Resistance; (10 to 12)% to Monster maximum Lightning Resistance 11. +(4000 to 6000) Monster Armour 12. +(4000 to 6000) Monster Evasion 13. (50 to 80)% increased Monster Accuracy 14. (40 to 60)% reduced Effect of Debuffs on Monsters 15. Monsters Reflect (15-20)% of Fire Damage 16. Monsters Reflect (15-20)% of Cold Damage 17. Monsters Reflect (15-20)% of Lightning Damage 18. Monsters reflect (15-20)% of Physical Damage 19. Monsters gain (30 to 40)% of Life as Extra Energy Shield 20. (40 to 60)% Chance for Monsters to Avoid being Stunned 21. (8.0 to 10.0)% of Monster Damage Leeched back as Life 22. Monsters cast Summon Skeletons on Death 23. (30 to 40)% more Rare Monsters; Rare Monsters each have a Nemesis Mod 24. (30 to 40)% more Magic Monsters; Magic Monsters are Lethal 25. Area is inhabited by melee attackers; (40 to 60)% increased Monster Movement Speed 26. Area is inhabited by ranged attackers; Monsters fire (2 to 4) additional Projectiles 27. Area is inhabited by spellcasters; (15 to 25)% chance Monsters Knock their enemies Back on hit 28. Unique Boss possesses Turbo speed 29. Area contains two Unique Bosses 30. Area has patches of Burning Ground 31. Area has patched of Chilled Ground 32. Area has patches of Shocking Ground 33. Area contains many Totems 34. Area contains many Proximity Shields {note: as per the Evangelist skill, but stationary and indestructible} 35. Area contains (1 to 3) additional Rogue Exile(s) 36. Area contains (1 to 3) additional Shrine(s) 37. Area contains (1 to 3) additional Stronbox(es) 38. Area contains a Vaal Vessel guarded by a unique Vaal boss 39. Players regenerate Life (40 to 60)% slower 40. Players regenerate Mana (40 to 60)% slower 41. (40 to 60)% reduced Player Energy Shield Cooldown Recovery 42. (40 to 60)% reduced Player Leech rates 43. (20 to 30)% less effect of Flasks 44. (30 to 50)% less Player Critical Strike Chance 45. Player Chance to Block is Unlucky 46. (20 to 30)% less Player Skill Duration; (20 to 30)% less effect of Players' Skills on Players 47. (20 to 30)% reduced Player Stun Threshold; (20 to 30)% reduced Player Block and Stun Recovery 48. (20 to 30)% less Player Attack and Cast speed 49. -(6 to 8)% to Player Maximum Resistances 50. Monsters inflict random level (18 to 23) Curses on Death 51. Players gain a Bleed Charge when Hit by Physical Damage 52. Players gain (20 to 25)% increased Experience {note: 30% quantity penalty} 53. Monsters cast Summon Raging Spirit on Death 54. Monsters cast level (12-15) Storm Call when Hit 55. (10 to 15)% increased Mana Cost Multipliers of Support Gems From there, it's rather simple to adjust the map drop rate to fit developer intentions. For instance, per the earlier example, six-affix maps would predictably have 114-132% quantity, or at least 134% assuming full chiseling. For the highest maps (78s), we could assume we want to absolutely enforce a six-affix pattern in order to expect sustainability. Thus the map drop rate could be adjusted such that, after vendoring lower-level maps upwards, the expected number of 78s found in each 78 is (at least) 1 assuming, oh, 130% quantity. As mentioned earlier, this wouldn't be guaranteed, but the probabilities should be set such that this is the average (meaning mean) outcome. Lower-level maps would obviously require less commitment, but still some; for example, the expected number of 68s from a 67 might be (at least) 1 only under 40% or more quantity, encouraging players to either Alch such maps or at least get a decent roll with Alterations. Currently, the chances of a 78 dropping in a 78 are pitiful low in comparison to this concept. Even running maps on an effect 200% quantity does not yield an expected chance of getting another 78, even after vendoring up lower maps. To partially alleviate this, I would strongly recommend the vendor formula for maps being changed such that 2 maps of the same name become 1 map of 1 level higher. However, the important part is that, assuming the players add an appropriate degree of affix-based randomness to their maps, they should be rewarded with the expectation of actually being able to sustain even the highest level of mapping. In other words, the GGG quote of "On average, players will not have a constant supply of Maps unless they trade for more or do end-game boss runs to try to find another when they run out. This is the same philosophy as any other end-game item (players are always pretty low on 200% damage weapons), and is necessary to help keep Maps rewarding and valuable." ... that's bullshit. A caveat I'd like to clarify: I'm not necessarily against some of the highest maps, specifically 77s and 78s, being perhaps just outside the bounds of sustainable (meaning: perhaps an expected return slightly below 1). I am, however, staunchly against making 76s unsustainable. Endgame players should at least be able to continuously sustain a level of map in which the highest maps (78s) are droppable. Assuming a commitment to six affixes, only a truly incredible (as in: people literally do not believe you) bad luck streak should relegate a truly endgame player so low that they don't even have the chance of a lucky, instant, and full recovery. So in conclusion:
To anyone who reads this entire thing thoroughly, I thank you for your time. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jun 30, 2014, 6:41:34 AM
This thread has been automatically archived. Replies are disabled.
|
|
|
You only mentioned economy once here, no good.
"FullyBlownDaddy"-FullBlownDaddy™
"FillBlownDaddy"-GGG "FullBlownMommy"-Casual_Ascent |
|
|
If the only change they made was taking out pack size, magic monsters, and rare monsters while increasing the base size to off set this change id be a happy person.
|
|
" Scrotie, you're a G. The chance to Vaal +1% maximum resists on an amulet is less than 1/300.
|
|
|
Very sharp analysis Scrotie, I enjoyed to read. However it doesn't quite hit the mark for me at all.
Whenever it is possible to predict and predetermine map drops by following a certain course of actions, the players can and will do this to the fullest extend. This means everybody will be swimming in 78 maps within a week or two. After all it adds another layer of RNG that says "you have to get 6 mods on all your 78 maps" and this can take from 1-30 chaoses if you are unlucky even more. This is no good. The solution for the map-system is to take off the pressure on it alone and complement it with other grindable endgame content. Really alot is possible there that even also includes small currency sinks. This way map drop rates could be even reduced and players woul play this other content 2/3 of the time and once in a while when they get a good map drop they would go and have this great alteration of playing a map instead. As I tried to indicate in my own feedback thread, there is no perfect solution for the map drop thing, and there can't be. Either they are scarce or they are not scarce. When they are scarce (and they should be for sure) players wont have content to grind at certain points of time. If you let them control the drops, noone would ever worry about maps anymore at all and things would get hell boring. The map-system is great as it is but it is not capable of doing the endgame job for this game alone - and it will never be. Therefore it is useless to waste time to further tweak it. As I mentioned above, new troubles will arise and the story is going to be an endless one. | |
"This is the kind of thing which is handled with simple drop rate decreases (or increases). The problem as I see it is not that GGG is having trouble finding the right numbers for high map sustainment, it's that they don't believe high maps should be sustained at all, and thus are avoiding the appropriate numbers deliberately. "Slightly inaccurate. You still wouldn't have to get 6 affixes on all of your 78 maps, you'd just have to get 6 affixes on most of them. You could still use a high-roll five-affix, which you understand might have an expected return of 0.9 or 0.95, with the pseudo-obligation to later cancel that out with a high-roll six (or eight) affix map with an expected return of 1.05 or 1.1. What would not work in such a scenario would be a complacent acceptance of five-affix maps. It would be something you'd have to struggle against, accepting only sometimes. "I'm not against this, but that wouldn't be a solution for the map system; it would be an alternative to the map system. I'm not saying alternatives are all bad, but I do believe maps should be the primary system for endgame variety. Giving players some alternatives so they can take a break is still a good idea, but that's not an excuse to leave portions of the map system broken. Adjusting the map system should be done under the assumption that there are no alternatives, regardless of whether alternatives exist or not. "False dichotomy. We're talking about a consumable here, and it's possible to have rate of introduction become approximately equal to rate of consumption. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jun 29, 2014, 8:48:49 PM
|
|
|
Well, I shouldn't be posting that much about maps given how much I really played, but I have two questions:
-Where would the chaos orb's surplus go with this changes? -What effect will the (relatively) easier access to maps in the game? More people will have access to high level items, levelling to 100, Atziri, Uber Atziri, etc. Some day I'll get to maps. Before the Sun goes red. Add a Forsaken Masters questline
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 |
|
" "Complaints from opposite directions. Sounds balanced to me. ;) When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jun 29, 2014, 8:55:03 PM
|
|
" The rate of introduction is already almost equal to the rate of consumption, I am quite sure. Otherwise map prices could not have dropped this much over the last 3-4 months. Just the distribution is uneven I guess, so that still the guy who plays a white 76 map can drop 2x78 out of it and the other guy who plays a 130% packsize 78 map gets nothing. In my perfect PoE world maps would not at all drop new maps but you could obtain maps from the other content only (which can be randomized very well too such as randomized questzones given from npcs in a3n). This way maps could become something more special instead of being the standard repetitive content of the endgame. Droprates for items and orbs could be heavily improved on these new maps and grinding the normal endgame content would reward you with maps once in a while. I like the ratio of 1:2 map:nomap content. If these new maps had heavily increased item dropchances it would be even fun to roll them decently and even play the lower ones just for magic find reasons while the normal repetitive content would be more for mindless grinding xp and maps. | |
|
Very well done scrotie. I'll say at least for my personal preferences in what I'd like for the map system you hit the nail on the head 100%. But that's the problem, we're dealing with personal and subjective preferences about what the endgame should be and as evidenced by your dev quote they don't feel the same way.
I do hope we get some kind of dev response though. That could provide some valuable insight and would make for a very good discussion. |
|
