Map Drops in The Awakening

One question I want to ask. Why these announcements threads are open when no one cares about players opinion. I understand that devs are something like the gods, they will never say "sorry that was wrong" or "we will change it because seems ppl dont like it". Dont get me wrong, its not only for GGG - all devs are the same. I'm not 100% sure that this change will be bad, its just still theory, we need to see what will happen, but looks more like some bad nerf... again. I regret for one thing... why I'm reading these forum news... since I read this incoming change I suddenly lose motivation to play the game(beta). I will be back to good old Standard live server to lvl my char till I can, because when this expansion release probably I will stop. The new expansion should be something NEW and better, like one player said -- give us something new and fun to do and stop screwing up what works. Simple. But sadly the bad changes raining one after another. And I dont like a single one... except new things like golems and to have new skills like Ice Crash, they are example for good new things to do. I never read discussion about Enlighten for example. So if i get something wrong sry, but this is example for one of the worst change ever... to make mana reduce available only for rich ppl.

"

Chris wrote:

It's worth noting that +2 maps are a dangerous thing. They can cause players to get out of their depth - playing maps that are too hard for the items they currently have. We expect these changes to both help with this situation and to also provide an understandable way to have a chance at a +2 map: killing the map boss.

Umm no, unless you're re-working the map bosses, this is a really silly statement.

Map lvl 72 - Torture chamber, shock and horror. Easy yes?
Map lvl 74 - Gorge. Oh noes, this is soo hard. How could my poor character ever survive.

Point is guys, if I'm playing on 74 - 77 maps, and my character is capable of soloing the content fairly well for the most part, BUT the map bosses are generally over-tuned in difficulty and most characters are good with AoE but bad with single-target (another thing that needs fixing WITHOUT breaking current builds), meaning that it's logical to run maps and sometimes ignore the bosses.

Moreover it's a lot more fun (at least for me) to run into a huge room, explode the room into oblivion and move on, than it is to sit wailing away at a boss for 3 minutes.

You're basically nerfing plays (like me) who prefer clearing maps than to actually focusing on the bosses, by reducing the level of +lvl map drops we get.

At the very least, allow cart. boxes to still drop +2 (or +3) lvl maps, and give rare mobs a smaller chance (but a chance nonetheless) to drop +2 maps.

"

Diphal wrote:

"

grepman wrote:

a 78 map drop should feel exciting says chris, and I fully agree with him.

Except it doesn't... after a not long time, you get bored from sustaining 78 maps with OVERWHELMING number of 2 tilesets.

now that is the case. that is why theyre tightening the drop rate. it certainly was exciting before cartographers, zana or map changes. people used exalts on maps to sustain maps in open beta.

"

You are right tho that current system need to have 78 maps to be kinda "gated". Well I say dont remove gate, but change the damn system. Why we are capped at level 78?

Just remove the damn cap level of maps, make tilesets random and be done with it. If someone is capable of doing map level 95, just let him... I'd much rather be capped by capabilities of my build than being capped by map level. Not even speaking of fact that GGG wants 78 maps to be rare because they are last. Which is kinda lame.

At least there would be some kind of challenge in endgame.

because poes progression isnt linear, there is no real rhyme or reason to associate between your 'ability' and the map level

maps are capped at 78 because they dont want you reach the level cap in two days. they want the road to 100 be a long experience, not one nolifers can cheese to in a few days then leave the game

Really bad idea. In live the drop rate for high level maps is already too low. It is not possible right now to sustain a pool of high level maps. Bad bad bad idea...

"

twitticles wrote:

The vast majority of players have most likely never set their foot in a 78 map and wouldn't (I'm assuming) be too confident opening up their first 75 either, I sure wasn't when I had no clue what the map bosses were capable of. Admittedly I'm fairly hardcore focused, softcore is a bit of a different animal.

vast majority of players have never made it past brutus in normal. people who play endgame seriously usually make to 78 maps with no real troubles nowadays. I had no troubles reaching the 77/78 maps playing solo self found in torment. sure, YMMV, and someone will get fucked by the RNG, but there are always maps to be bought if youre SOL

"

You're basing those numbers on non-guaranteed map drops still being a significant factor so that you can vendor the guaranteed maps.

huh ? no Im not- I just said those numbers come from guaranteed maps.

"

My idea is to drastically reduce random map drops to the point where it covers non-cleared maps, server destroying instances and some sprinkled on top. Map influx should remain roughly the same as it is today, only eliminating the streakiness in map drops and replacing it with a certainty.

there will still be zana inception maps, zana dailies and cartos, remember

"

I'd be perfectly fine with all maps still being done by generated randomness, if said randomness was done on a per-drop basis to smooth out the streakiness the current number generation exhibits, but I assume that would be far more taxing on the servers.

in other words, you dont like real RNG

"

grepman wrote:

"

twitticles wrote:

You're basing those numbers on non-guaranteed map drops still being a significant factor so that you can vendor the guaranteed maps.

huh ? no Im not- I just said those numbers come from guaranteed maps.

"

grepman wrote:

lets do some simple math and probability theory here. lets assume you have 50% chance of getting +0 map and 50% of getting +1 map. now these weights might be different, but for sake of argument let's assume that the probabilities are equal.

after 3 runs of maps of the same level, you'll have 77% chance to get +1. if you were "unlucky" and got 3 maps of the same level, they will still vendor for another map (in the long run). that's 3 runs per level for +1 maps JUST from the guaranteed drops

so in 12 levels (66->78) you will need to run exactly 3 maps per level = 36 maps to get 1 78 map. at which point you'll NEVER go down. its a microscopic number of maps given that theyre all from GUARANTEED map drops.

You're still basing those numbers on non-guaranteed map drops. If you get one and only one drop per map you can't vendor three maps because you need to run the dropped maps to get any drop beyond the first. To go up a map level you'd have to get a +1 drop or get it from zana/strongbox. If the drop rate for a +1 map is 10% you average ten maps per level, if it's 5% it's 20 maps per level and so on.
Of course this gets ridiculously convoluted, so it's certainly not the ideal solution.

"

grepman wrote:

"

twitticles wrote:

I'd be perfectly fine with all maps still being done by generated randomness, if said randomness was done on a per-drop basis to smooth out the streakiness the current number generation exhibits, but I assume that would be far more taxing on the servers.

in other words, you dont like real RNG

I've no idea what your definition of "real RNG" is. Any RNG code is "real" no matter how crappy randomness it actually exhibits. I just pointed out I'd be happy as a camper if the drops weren't as streaky, and current streakiness is due to the code used by GGG being far from ideal. If we could have true randomness (which would require external input of something unpredictable) we wouldn't see five maps in a row without a single drop and the next five maps drop 3-4 each as often as we do now.

Current map drop rates mean the streakiness can be worked around by having a large enough map pool at the relevant level and spending some currency rolling the maps. Lower the drop rate and it becomes increasingly hard to work around.

"

twitticles wrote:

"

grepman wrote:

"

twitticles wrote:

You're basing those numbers on non-guaranteed map drops still being a significant factor so that you can vendor the guaranteed maps.

huh ? no Im not- I just said those numbers come from guaranteed maps.

"

grepman wrote:

lets do some simple math and probability theory here. lets assume you have 50% chance of getting +0 map and 50% of getting +1 map. now these weights might be different, but for sake of argument let's assume that the probabilities are equal.

after 3 runs of maps of the same level, you'll have 77% chance to get +1. if you were "unlucky" and got 3 maps of the same level, they will still vendor for another map (in the long run). that's 3 runs per level for +1 maps JUST from the guaranteed drops

so in 12 levels (66->78) you will need to run exactly 3 maps per level = 36 maps to get 1 78 map. at which point you'll NEVER go down. its a microscopic number of maps given that theyre all from GUARANTEED map drops.

You're still basing those numbers on non-guaranteed map drops. If you get one and only one drop per map you can't vendor three maps because you need to run the dropped maps to get any drop beyond the first. To go up a map level you'd have to get a +1 drop or get it from zana/strongbox. If the drop rate for a +1 map is 10% you average ten maps per level, if it's 5% it's 20 maps per level and so on.
Of course this gets ridiculously convoluted, so it's certainly not the ideal solution.

ah I see what you mean now. I thought I made it clear with the '3 maps per level' thing. But yeah, you're right. Since maps are tradeable, you can also trade for some, although in your suggestion maps would actually be scarcer and thus more expensive than they are now, which works out well.

"

twitticles wrote:

If we could have true randomness (which would require external input of something unpredictable) we wouldn't see five maps in a row without a single drop and the next five maps drop 3-4 each as often as we do now.

that doesnt make much sense. streaks happen with 'true randomness' too. a poker player can make all the right moves and be a on a huge losing streak just off starting hands RNG.

what youre trying to do is to minimize variance. even then streaks will not disappear- they will simply become a bit less prominent. even then, a sample size of 10 maps of streaks is barely any

making 'randomness done on a per-drop basis' is not 'randomness' anymore.

what I referred to as 'true' RNG is that a distribution is not altered or normalized to appease the player and fulfill the gamblers fallacy. there are not bullshit, artificial self-correcting guarantees that if you dont get drop in x time you will increasingly have higher odds to get it in the next trial. THAT is not "true" RNG. true RNG is independent of any previous trials, ie maps/mob packs

"

twitticles wrote:

Current map drop rates mean the streakiness can be worked around by having a large enough map pool at the relevant level and spending some currency rolling the maps.

in other words, the more trials you do, the closer you get to expected value. how is that a novel concept ?

the house doesnt win in roulette over 10 trials. it wins in having 100+k trials. it will have streaks of big losses and big wins. and it will emerge the winner regardless over the long run

So what about the players that enjoy playing solo, because they don't like to play with idiots / have to kiss certain's peoples ass to get into their guild or map group so that you are able to sustain these high level maps.

I personally really enjoy being in control of the situation and playing the game mostly solo. I feel like this further and further forces players like me into having to play in groups, for me groups are not an enjoyable thing at times. While it was clearly shown that certain groups in the current meta were able to just flameblast their way to 100, while pooling their 77/78 maps. I personally hate playing a build I don't enjoy, but I want to have the ability to at least stay competetive in level with players that are just grouping the highest maps all day, a lot of them leechers, like a certain someone who leeched their way to 100 in beyond league than changed their name to be the number 1 on the ladder list lol... cough cough..

How about rewarding solo players more, A lot of content is trivial in a group, while in solo play, you must trust your character, and actually know how to play to effectively do certain bosses, etc. I.E. I do 78 dominus with mods that 99% of people would skip, and generally get junk. And I do him, as a physical t-shot ranger, I can be 1 shot if i make 1 mistake and do not line of sight his spiders correctly. or he desync teleports and hand of god's me even after I /oos and think I am safe. So I risk an HC character with a mirror bow, and a total of 700-800 exalts of gear, for what? Junk.

Just please don't pigeon hole us solo guys into having to group. I want to hit 100 in act 4. However, I just do not trust even the top players, if you need proof of how easy it is to rip someone even if you are a "top player" or whatever you want to call yourself. Some top players are garbage noob d2jspers/rmters. That just buy the best gear again and re-level because they are no-lifers. I like to balance video games somewhat with personal life, I.e. The gym, sex with my girlfriend, family time etc. So While I've seen guys level 5 lvl 90+ characters and rip them all in the time it takes me to hit 96. They are in standard and I'm alive, Why? Because better safe than standard.

Please address this serious concern of mine Chris. I feel like I have earned a little bit of a right to ask, after supporting this game with over a few thousand dollars. I along with so many other awesome supporters made sure you could put food on the table for your family, Now please do us a favor back, and answer some of our concerns.