Map Changes in 2.0.4

"

Perkstoph wrote:

1% of players are able to hit 100, better raise that xp from 99->100 so they can grind our maps for another week of not having a life or streaming because it's their job.

I don't understand why every fix you make includes making the game more confusing and unintuitive. The leech changes still don't make any sense to most people, and now you are overcomplicating the map system as well.

Oh and more hidden mechanics now as well with the changes to top map exp.

You know that ground effects are a fail in terms of design right? Covering a full third or more of the map makes them impossible to avoid. Why not increase their effect and make them less plentiful? That might actually encourage the type of zoning play that I think they were intended for.

"

Psyringe wrote:

"High level maps run through Zana" is a mystery to me since Zana doesn't offer any high level maps in the first place.

daily zana quest probably

"

Karvarousku wrote:

I don't see the reason that instead of having map levels making them tiers. Are you going to be remaking the "zone level" to "tier level" and are we going to be getting "tierlevel 15" items instead of itemlevel 82? If not, why not just keep the map levels as they are and not confuse people?

Because now you just need to know how to count to 15. GGG made a determination that counting past 68 was too high of an exercise. The fact that the map level corresponded to item and monster levels apparently made absolutely no sense, and therefore you must now adopt more mental math because integers have no place in Wraeclast.

Things like .02 leech just looks better and it's easier to understand.

On a positive note, the - yet another because the last was not significant - drop rate boost is welcome news.

Reading comprehension continues to elude the forum community I see.

Keep doing what you doing GGG F the haters.. The tier shit a lil funky.. Everything else sounds legit.. HYPE TRAIN GGG LEGGGGGO

Just keep maps the same, the grind to 100 is long enough for casual players already and it gets quite boring running the same low lvl maps because of no map returns. Making it twice as long to reach lvl 100 from 99 just puts off the idea of even wanting to grind to that level, and since I (pretty sure many others too) have a job and have only a few hours of free time to play the game unlike the streamers or no lifers it seems like an impossible feat.

I feel the real problem about maps isn't the drop rate or exp gains. once you hit a higher character level you will play the same maps over and over again which gets boring pretty fast.
I like the fact that you get a random map at a moderate level by doing the zana daily. Why not try to include that mechanic somehow in the regular map procedure. this could easily achieved by adding a zana-mod ... instead of x% quantity you choose to get a random base-map with the lvl of the map you put in.

For the most part, I think everything here sounds either fantastic or unlikely to impact me, mostly the former. I'm particularly pleased that map drop rates will be increased again as I didn't really notice the last changes much, and the damage tweaks will be welcome too. I think the high-level map exp changes are probably for the best -- odds are that even many players who complain about them will probably either not be affected by them (due to not actually running enough high-level maps to feel it even if they think they will) or will come out ahead in the end (due to being able to get high-level maps more easily), and those that genuinely will be affected are a very small percentage of players.

The numbered tiers, on the other hand... I totally get less savvy players being confused by the fact that map levels stop matching up to character levels quickly, but I think the tier system will just create more confusion -- there won't be any reference point at all for what level of map players should run anymore. If you want to give players a better idea of what maps they should be running, give them MORE information, not less -- tiers are LESS information, because they eliminate the existing, if faulty, context for whether a map is safe to run. Keep the area levels easily accessible and add some new cues instead -- a recommended character level or a difficulty scale expressed as something like 'n out of 10' or even a more involved (but still concise!) display of extra info that includes something like the layout types and boss ratings on the wiki, I dunno, but it needs to actually mean something; players who fail to quickly grasp that they should be overleveled for endgame maps aren't going to understand the real meaning of tier numbers. (If not for the fact that they won't start SEEING high-tier maps until they start RUNNING high-tier maps, they wouldn't even have any way to know whether which end of the tier scale was the more difficult end, since the common way that players discuss things like the numerical values of certain mods, or the rarity of certain uniques, uses tier 1 for the best/rarest.)

(Also, WTF, people, do you not know how Zana works? If Zana shows up in your level 80 map, what level map do you think her mission is going to be? Unless she gives you a unique map, it's going to be 79-81. And while I'm on the subject of Zana, making her the only master it's impossible to get a level 76 area from when ever other master gives you 76 every single time (and Haku actually gives 77 every time)? Really disappointing. It'll be a little less disappointing if I actually ever get any 76 and 77 maps out of her 75s, but only a little.)

I agree that there's no reason at all in renaming "level" to "tier". It's exactly the same thing - except that it's simply more confusing and will just cause everybody to have to convert back (at least at first), and get annoyed at having to do so. If there's going to be a name change, there should be something substantive behind that name change. Who cares if it's level 68 or tier 1? If it makes no difference, why change it?