Thoughts on the Design of the Map System

Look scrotie, GeorgAnatoly asked for a dev response on this.

I am quite sure if devs gave any serious in depth response on this, it would probably more or less be what I have said to it.

You have to acknoledge that endgame progress cannot simply be connected to players wealth (=rolling 6 mods or 5 high mods on every map). This would simply result in players that are poor cannot get a lucky map pick anymore (what they can now) and players that are rich can sustain maps forever without any risks of losing them.

Making the whole map-system fix like this does not sound like a good idea to me either. Of course I dont like the pure RNG driven thing it is now too much either. But seriously your solution is not complex enough to make it fit for the whole game and include all the different players that are being involved imo.


I like alot of the stuff that you wrote btw. Just the fixing of mapdroprates 100% to the quantity on the map is and cannot be a good idea. I appeal to your common sense to acknowledge this mate.


The thing you should ask yourself also is: If such an easy solution would work best for PoE, why would devs deny to implement it or why wouldn't they want it to be like this? I gave the answers already.

"

LSN wrote:

I like alot of the stuff that you wrote btw. Just the fixing of mapdroprates 100% to the quantity on the map is and cannot be a good idea. I appeal to your common sense to acknowledge this mate.

Perhaps you're confused. I'm not saying that 100% of the time that you run a 78 with 130% quantity that you will get another 78. I'm saying that if you ran one hundred 78s with 130% quantity, the most likely number of 78s you would get, after vendoring up maps with the vendor formula, would be one hundred. RNG would still be in effect. Players who run less than 130% quantity could still get lucky; the average number of 78s dropped from a 78 with 107% quantity (rather typical four-affix with chisels) would be 0.9 (fully proportional), so it wouldn't exclusively be for the rich.

Also, the specific numbers aren't the important thing here; it's the general concepts. I am saying even the highest maps (well, except maybe 79s) should be sustainable; I am not saying they should be easily sustainable; I am saying that running the maximum number of affixes (meaning the most possible randomness applied to actually running the map) should be encouraged by the system itself.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

LSN wrote:

I like alot of the stuff that you wrote btw. Just the fixing of mapdroprates 100% to the quantity on the map is and cannot be a good idea. I appeal to your common sense to acknowledge this mate.

Perhaps you're confused. I'm not saying that 100% of the time that you run a 78 with 130% quantity that you will get another 78. I'm saying that if you ran one hundred 78s with 130% quantity, the most likely number of 78s you would get, after vendoring up maps with the vendor formula, would be one hundred. RNG would still be in effect. Players who run less than 130% quantity could still get lucky; the average number of 78s dropped from a 78 with 107% quantity (rather typical four-affix with chisels) would be 0.9 (fully proportional), so it wouldn't exclusively be for the rich.

Also, the specific numbers aren't the important thing here; it's the general concepts. I am saying even the highest maps (well, except maybe 79s) should be sustainable; I am not saying they should be easily sustainable; I am saying that running the maximum number of affixes (meaning the most possible randomness applied to actually running the map) should be encouraged by the system itself.

Well yes then I didnt read this closely enough. Still my points would remain the same:
1. We have this system already, just the variance is too high so that streaks affect you. If you lower variance then it would just get closer to what I thought you wanted to do originally with having 100% mapdrop expectence on certainly rolled maps.
2. Mainaining maps would still be a pure matter of wealth (no matter if counted on 1 or 100 maps).
3. The boredom of only maps being the endgame would not change at all, which is the most significant thing that should be addressed.

Why tweaking a system that already works like this without having a real change then?

I suggest the devs to put focus on completely new endgame content and implement maps into this in terms of gaining/spending them. I think this is quite a reasonable advice after all without looking too much onto specific numbers.



"I am saying that running the maximum number of affixes (meaning the most possible randomness applied to actually running the map) should be encouraged by the system itself."
Alot of these things can still get implemented imo.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

[/list]I believe these failures have occurred due to a development mindset which looks at the map system as an endgame currency and time sink first, and as replayable endgame content second, if at all.

I think this at the start sums up a lot of problems the map system has had since open beta. I dunno the minds of the devs so I cant say if its a fair judgement, but its certainly one Ive leveled at it a fair few times in the past.


I personally believe that the currency sink part of it worked far too well. Rather than serving as drainage for excess currency it was actually more like a crack epidemic, the demand for currency, the need for it was so crazy because it essentially became your access to the game. Players who would rather have just been off grinding maps were running high mf chaos recipe farms 10 hours a day 7 days a week, rampantly trading and generally making themselves miserable trying to stay on top of it. It demanded that the amount of currency in circulation was magnitudes greater than was naturally there and the mf farms, the bot farms, the rmt/jsp stepped in to fill this void. Where theres such demand supply finds a way. So, I feel, the sink actually increased the amount of currency in the game, and thats sort of ok because it ate it all too, but how that currency was being created was neither fun nor healthy.


I agree with virtually everything said in the op and I believe the currency sink part of it will still work just fine with the changes suggested. Before the recent map changes it was already so over the top it was generating its own meals. since the changes its been a lot better, and I honestly dont see what you are saying changing how much maps are being rolled atm, it would just change why we reroll them for the better.


I think the 'this build cant to x, y and z affixes' is a little cheeseball. I liked it at first, and there is that fun dynamic of finding builds that can deal with the most mods and having to make tradeoffs between which way you build for them. But ultimately that works against build diversity in a game where you are trying to make a diverse range of builds available. Making it harder is good, making it completely impossible for a huge section of builds is not helping anything, as said its just forcing the reroll for the sake of it.




----------------------------------------------





Im going to post another thought on maps, usually I dont like going off discussing the op, but scrot youve seen my thread on need more diversity in higher map tiers, and your post brings in sustaining tiers and variety through affixes, so I feel this touches on both our points despite being a 3rd suggestion in itself.

Scrotie and I fundamentally disagree about some things so what Im about to post here is not necessarily a continuation of my agreement with his post that he will endorse and I dont want to derail the thread but here it goes as a throw away observation while we are in the ballpark

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Obviously, there is no place for affixes such as "of Hordes" under such a system.

I've thought for a while now (and meant to make a suggestion) that hordes, champs and comms should be removed.

I think mob density, number of champions and number of commanders should scale entirely off of the quantity on the map.

Which would (with the removal of those 3) be made up by both number of affixes and difficulty of those affixes.

The harder the map (be it because of 6 affixes, because of difficult affixes or because of both) the more quantity, the more density, the more champions, the more commanders, the more loot, the more map drops and the more XP. And of course, the more risk.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I believe these failures have occurred due to a development mindset which looks at the map system as an endgame currency and time sink first, and as replayable endgame content second, if at all.

^This, Scrotie, this is economy centric design.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

Scrotie and I fundamentally disagree about some things so what Im about to post here is not necessarily a continuation of my agreement with his post that he will endorse and I dont want to derail the thread but here it goes as a throw away observation while we are in the ballpark

Spoiler

Part of what you are talking about here is sustaining maps, and my thread was about the boredom of sustain 77/78s all day for weeks on end with only 4 different maps at these levels. I think maybe part of the problem is why we feel the need to sustain at such a high level. I think the devs picture people bouncing around from lvl72 to lvl78s, and thats where the variety comes from, so perhaps they dont see a need to sustain at a level x or have any particular variety in any given narrow bracket.

But the xp system is working against this. The amount of xp on offer in a 78 compared to a 72 makes the 72 not even worth running, even a 74/75. Its not about the amount of xp gained thats the issue, its the size of the difference.

I enjoy bouncing around the brackets, I like the variety of it, but when I hit 90/91/92 the amount of xp i can get in a 78 compared to a 74 makes me not want to run even 74s. Obviously there needs to be more xp, but I think he formula for say 66+ needs changed slightly so the difference is not so big as zones scale. People should want to play as high as possible, but they shouldnt feel its so extreme that its not even worth running a 74 map.

If that means bringing down the xp you get from a 78 and making the journey to 100 a little bit longer then so be it, Im making no judgement on how long lvl100 should take. In the same way scrotie is talking about bringing down the variance in the map quants to allow more control of intended sustainability vs rolling, this would bring down the variance in how long it takes to get to 100 so that can also be put more in line with intended values. First 100 took 4 months, and GGG seemed a little upset it was done so fast, now people can do it in what? 4 weeks? If mapping had variety in the manners scrotie and my post in the suggestion forums bring up then I think it would be safe to curb how crazy fast the system allows some people to level and let players to enjoy the bounce of maps more, rather than have this water line where you are drowning below it and desperately need get above it and stay there to carry on. If people are enjoying a diverse, interesting grind with less negative pressure from troll affixes and high level map drops that are still too low to even humor playing then they wouldnt mind the grind being a bit longer. Ultimately the grind is the game, if the games fun you dont want it to finish quicker, and I feel like most people shooting for 100 atm probably have a lot of moments where they just wish it was over because of the endless chain of the same couple of maps rolled as blandly as their currency would allow.

High end maps stop being special at some point now, they become bread and butter with everything else being dirt. How can a basic essential be something special? On some level its like the currency sink, the objective was achieved so well that it went beyond to a whole new place where it stopped working properly again for a whole new set of reasons. 77/78s shouldnt feel like a basic essential for playing the game, if sustaining 77/78s is not desired then a level than can be sustained needs to be relatively worth playing and made somewhat reliable in the manner scrotie describes, statistically sustainable given appropriate investment.

It seems to me that the portion in the spoiler is based entirely on the premise that 77/78s are not sustainable. I believe high maps should be sustainable, which, no offense, would make your concern moot.

One thing I would 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. 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. (Added this section to OP.)

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

I think mob density, number of champions and number of commanders should scale entirely off of the quantity on the map.

Which would (with the removal of those 3) be made up by both number of affixes and difficulty of those affixes.

I agree that "of Hordes" is beyond salvation.

However, I think Champions and Commanders can be salvaged on the condition that they become combination affixes. For example, they are both "present" in my list of suggested map affixes in the OP, specifically:
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
I'm pretty confident about #23 actually being interesting; combining the current "Antagonist's" and "of Commanders" affixes into a single affix might breathe some life into the concept. I'm a little worried about #24 being a bit too, well, lethal.

However, I'll agree with you this far: even with such changes, those two affixes would be a balance gamble, and I could easily imagine removing them in testing due to proof of them being over-rewarding. In their current forms, it's obvious that Champions and Commanders are not good map affixes.

Nice writeup, and I don't really disagree with much of any of it, so instead I'll offer a little bit of constructive criticism on your proposed map mods, since those are the things likely to have the biggest effect.

First off, this criticism comes from the standpoint that maps are supposed to primarily be challenging and enjoyable. If you come at this from a stance that maps should only be challenging, or should only be enjoyable, nothing I'm about to say holds weight. Also, I'm only really going to comment on the mods that seem problematic; everything else is pretty much fine.

7 is a bit much and should probably be a "Chance to Gain Endurance Charge on Hit" since Endurance Charges are such a powerful defensive mechanism and there's going to be a lot of hitting going on.
12 is a little sketchy because it might provoke an onslaught of builds running RT, but if it's uncommon it should be okay.
13 can fuck right off unless it has a partner mod of "Monsters pierce through x% Armor". High accuracy tends to pretty much neuter most EV builds, and I'm a little tired of seeing EV builds getting neutered by accuracy mods on things while AR builds get far less screwed over.
20 would pretty much neuter any stun builds, and since those pretty much got ripped in half with the Ground Slam nerf a while back, I don't think we need to kick them while they're down. I might be wrong, though.
22 looks like it'd be really annoying, and not much more considering that summoned skeletons don't serve any purpose other than to annoy. It'd be better than Fracturing is in terms of mods to actually run, though; although it would serve as an interesting "joke" mod - like Fracturing, I can see people running low-level maps with it for silliness and levity, but I can't see it getting run at high levels.
24 looks like it'd be a little too painful; maybe instead of Lethal, go with a flat damage increase of some sort?
27 is problematic just because of how desync happens with knockback. It'd get rerolled almost instantly because trying to run it would be basically taunting the server to desync your ass.
34 would serve less as a challenge and more as just an aggravation to any ranged builds. Then again, I still hold that Evangelists were GGG's worst-designed monster by a landslide, so I'm slightly biased. Basically, from my viewpoint as a mostly ranged player, Proximity Shields are interesting when they're rare, such as as a Nemesis mod - at that point, they're an interesting challenge. When you fill the map with them, such as rolling Evangelists, it turns from an interesting challenge into a slog through monsters you can never seem to fucking hit because either one of you is desynced, so you're outside of his shield and thus can't do shit, or because there's a fucking shield overlap preventing you from hitting either of the bastards for a solid 30 seconds. It brings any pacing the map had to a screeching halt, and is just generally a really, really obnoxious mechanic.
44 seems a little harsh. There's a reason almost nobody uses Marylene's. If you want to challenge crit builds, I'd say a heavy reduced modifier would probably suffice.
Same applies to 45; it's less of a challenge to block-based builds and more of a forced reroll.
48 would be rerolled almost instantly any time it came up. Almost everyone hates Temp Chains as a mod, and this wouldn't be any better.
51 and 54 would need to be transferred to "chance to" mods, given that one is basically Corrupting Blood but worse, and the other is a slightly dodgable Lightning Thorns.

The rest are alright; and my main problem with a vast majority of those I listed is that they seem less oriented as a challenge to the targeted build and free quantity to others and more as a "FUCK THIS BUILD IN PARTICULAR" and free quantity to others. Admittedly, it's a fine line to walk between having map mods be too easy and having them be brutally difficult, and the numbers would probably be fine-tuned in balance, but the concept of a few of them seems skewed.

When map progression mostly depends on hidden parameters (aka "seed", aka "RNGesus"), then other stuff doesn't matter much and most those dev-diary premises break down. If those have been written in the maze-era, then I can only laugh, as that was the time when you had to spend much orbs for the easiest map mod if you wanted to progress.

When you have a big enough map pool, it doesn't matter anymore how you roll them (meaning you will go for the easiest mods possible), because you can defeat seed variance with sheer numbers of map runs. Map quantity is just an illusion, exile.

The only problem is getting to a big map pool. Building the map pool is the only time you have to pay attention to rolls and do proper chiseling, early alcing, etc.. But since we have the glorius economy to save us from gameplay, you don't need to properly build your map pool, jut buy maps.

@TherosPherae

7 (Monsters gain Endurance Charge when Hit): Monsters are capped at 3 charges, so I don't believe this one is unreasonable.
13 (Monsters have increased Accuracy): I was actually just guessing when I wrote 30-40%. After actually running the numbers, I've determined the appropriate values are... 50-80%. That's right, harsher. In any case, those values are carefully crafted to ensure that builds with less than 25% chance to evade feel no strong effect (9-13% increasing attack damage received), those between 25% and 60% evade feel only a mild effect on melee attack damage (at worst, 25-36% increased damage received) but a drastic decrease in effectiveness in Ondar's Guile, while finally those with over 60% chance to evade can notice an effect on melee attack damage greater than a 25-36% increase, increasing as their block chance increases, but their new chance to evade remains at 45% or higher, thus virtually zero impact on their Ondar's Guile. If I'm wrong and the whole Ondar's Guile thing becomes a problem (because it really is severely hit by this affix at certain levels), it's possible the affix might be limited to Monster melee attacks to allow Guile to remain map viable.
20 (Monsters have a chance to Avoid Stun): You are aware that the map affix which exists now gives a complete stun immunity, right?
22 (Monsters cast Summon Skeletons on death): The purpose of the affix was to replace Fracturing; the reason for the change is to eliminate corpse clutter. I don't consider the current Fracturing to be a joke mod.
34 (Area contains Proximity Shields): It doesn't need to be a commonly appearing affix. Also, I enjoy the Evangelist design; one of my favorite monsters. Although I am the sort of weirdo who considers Sceptre to be the best area in the pre-map game...
44 (Less Player Critical Strike Chance): Eh, fair enough. I'm going to tone this one down to 30-50%.
45 (Block Chance is Unlucky): The interesting thing about this one is I originally had it as 20 to 30% reduced Player Block Chance (same mechanic as the Block Chance Reduction support gem), and someone pointed out to me that making it Unlucky would use a cool mechanic while just averaging it out to a 25% reduction for 75% block builds (75% of 75% is the same as 75% reduced by 25%). In any case, it's a tough affix, but it's not unbeatable.
48 (Less Player Attack and Cast Speed): I personally find the reduced movement speed to be the only truly maddening aspect of Temporal Chains maps. I carefully avoided reducing player movement speed in any direct way (only thing close is chilled ground).
51 (Players gain a Bleed Charge when Hit by Physical Damage) and 54 (Monsters cast Storm Call when Hit): Rather than granting a chance, I'd rather they trigger every time for less damage. Get the damage values right and a 100% chance is still fine.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

Scrotie and I fundamentally disagree about some things so what Im about to post here is not necessarily a continuation of my agreement with his post that he will endorse and I dont want to derail the thread but here it goes as a throw away observation while we are in the ballpark

Spoiler

Part of what you are talking about here is sustaining maps, and my thread was about the boredom of sustain 77/78s all day for weeks on end with only 4 different maps at these levels. I think maybe part of the problem is why we feel the need to sustain at such a high level. I think the devs picture people bouncing around from lvl72 to lvl78s, and thats where the variety comes from, so perhaps they dont see a need to sustain at a level x or have any particular variety in any given narrow bracket.

But the xp system is working against this. The amount of xp on offer in a 78 compared to a 72 makes the 72 not even worth running, even a 74/75. Its not about the amount of xp gained thats the issue, its the size of the difference.

I enjoy bouncing around the brackets, I like the variety of it, but when I hit 90/91/92 the amount of xp i can get in a 78 compared to a 74 makes me not want to run even 74s. Obviously there needs to be more xp, but I think he formula for say 66+ needs changed slightly so the difference is not so big as zones scale. People should want to play as high as possible, but they shouldnt feel its so extreme that its not even worth running a 74 map.

If that means bringing down the xp you get from a 78 and making the journey to 100 a little bit longer then so be it, Im making no judgement on how long lvl100 should take. In the same way scrotie is talking about bringing down the variance in the map quants to allow more control of intended sustainability vs rolling, this would bring down the variance in how long it takes to get to 100 so that can also be put more in line with intended values. First 100 took 4 months, and GGG seemed a little upset it was done so fast, now people can do it in what? 4 weeks? If mapping had variety in the manners scrotie and my post in the suggestion forums bring up then I think it would be safe to curb how crazy fast the system allows some people to level and let players to enjoy the bounce of maps more, rather than have this water line where you are drowning below it and desperately need get above it and stay there to carry on. If people are enjoying a diverse, interesting grind with less negative pressure from troll affixes and high level map drops that are still too low to even humor playing then they wouldnt mind the grind being a bit longer. Ultimately the grind is the game, if the games fun you dont want it to finish quicker, and I feel like most people shooting for 100 atm probably have a lot of moments where they just wish it was over because of the endless chain of the same couple of maps rolled as blandly as their currency would allow.

High end maps stop being special at some point now, they become bread and butter with everything else being dirt. How can a basic essential be something special? On some level its like the currency sink, the objective was achieved so well that it went beyond to a whole new place where it stopped working properly again for a whole new set of reasons. 77/78s shouldnt feel like a basic essential for playing the game, if sustaining 77/78s is not desired then a level than can be sustained needs to be relatively worth playing and made somewhat reliable in the manner scrotie describes, statistically sustainable given appropriate investment.

It seems to me that the portion in the spoiler is based entirely on the premise that 77/78s are not sustainable. I believe high maps should be sustainable, which, no offense, would make your concern moot.

One thing I would 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. 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. (Added this section to OP.)

well, its not so much based on them being unsustainable, but its asking the question is it a good thing that we feel the need to sustain 77/78, would the game be more fun if we felt the need to sustain 75+ and hence keep that fun of finding the higher ones and having an increased variety of maps we feel are worth our time playing.


I agree that in the present system where you are forced to sustain high through xp penalties we should be able to sustain maps that are worth playing, and that means sustaining 77/78+ for over 50% of your characters leveling to 100 journey. To some extent people do this as well, they manage to sustain to 100 in them through trade. But even if your suggestion and my more map variety suggestion were put in place and made sustaining 77/78 both possible for people not buying maps and more fun through more variety of maps/affixes, I feel like it would be even more fun if that bracket wasnt so tight? It would allow for a slight bounce fun to still exist and would increase the variety of maps on offer even further. I dpont see it as an alternative to the other 2 suggestions, more of a third angle of attack to ease the problem of grinding maps past the late 80s being currently boring and frustrating for all the reasons we are bringing up.

Even if it was just a slight touch that made 1 more map bracket 'viable' for players at any given stage I think it would help a lot.