Labyrinth is one of the best additions PoE ever had

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

So, um, any opinions (other than Nero's conservatism) regarding my suggestion on previous page?

I think there are some good suggestions and feedback in there. What was only partially addressed, IMHO, was that there seems to be a population of PoE players and ex-players that dislike trap game play. The ascendancy points are still gated behind this trap game play. A suggestion (not mine but, I like it) to solve this issue is to perhaps add a quest after Malachai is killed to kill Izaro. This quest would only be offered if the character has not already ascended. So at that point the character could ascend by picking one, either going back to act 3 and running through the Labyrinth or doing the new quest that would face Izaro without any traps.

My personal opinion is that not enjoying a particular challenge or activity, especially if it takes up a particularly long time during the new character/reroll process, is a valid reason to have that challenge shortened and/or optimized. I do not agree, however, with the notion that disliking a particular challenge means the challenge shouldn't exist at all or could be utterly bypassed at the player's option. If you want less traps, I don't think that's crazy; if you want no traps, sorry, git gud etc.

Easier? Okay. Remove difficulty completely? No.

My suggestion is less Trials and less Normal and Cruel Lab. That does mean less traps. It would still be an improvement for you.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

My personal opinion is that not enjoying a particular challenge or activity, especially if it takes up a particularly long time during the new character/reroll process, is a valid reason to have that challenge shortened and/or optimized. I do not agree, however, with the notion that disliking a particular challenge means the challenge shouldn't exist at all or could be utterly bypassed at the player's option. If you want less traps, I don't think that's crazy; if you want no traps, sorry, git gud etc.

Easier? Okay. Remove difficulty completely? No.

My suggestion is less Trials and less Normal and Cruel Lab. That does mean less traps. It would still be an improvement for you.

Removing traps does not remove difficulty. I don't find the traps difficult. I find trap game play to be boring tedious and not fun.

True that less traps would be an improvement. From your description though it would not be sufficiently less to get me interested in playing through it. However, for others it might be.

You cannot reasonably claim that traps pose zero difficulty. Claiming they are not very difficult is one thing, saying that their utter removal would not be a loss of difficulty is another. Lessening (or outright removing) traps does reduce difficulty, which I think is fine for Normal and Cruel.

50% less Labyrinth/Izaro (assuming one run per difficulty) and 66% less Trials isn't enough for you? Whatever man.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You cannot reasonably claim that traps pose zero difficulty. Claiming they are not very difficult is one thing, saying that their utter removal would not be a loss of difficulty is another. Lessening (or outright removing) traps does reduce difficulty, which I think is fine for Normal and Cruel.

50% less Labyrinth/Izaro (assuming one run per difficulty) and 66% less Trials isn't enough for you? Whatever man.

Actually, Turtledove hits the mark, while you miss a key point.

Gameplay time spent running through traps would instead be spent doing another part of the game for a *lot* of players as soon as an alternative to Labyrinth appeared for Ascending. And, that time spent on some part of the game other than Labyrinth wouldn't be spent floating through a special "no risk, no difficulty" zone. It would be spent running more maps or progressing through more of the storyline; both of these choices present some challenge.

Traps aren't inherently any more difficult than most of the rest of gameplay. But, they're a fun-sucking part of the game for a *lot* of players. Boring, tedious, and un-fun is an excellent summary.

Some people are opposed to floor spikes and similar on principle. Why a lot of that people is in PoE escapes me, but it's what it is.

Remember, many ask for things like endless ledge, so any kind of thing that could make you lose efficiency will be hated generally. Their waste of time is my engagement, I guess.

"

EnjoyTheJourney wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You cannot reasonably claim that traps pose zero difficulty. Claiming they are not very difficult is one thing, saying that their utter removal would not be a loss of difficulty is another. Lessening (or outright removing) traps does reduce difficulty, which I think is fine for Normal and Cruel.

50% less Labyrinth/Izaro (assuming one run per difficulty) and 66% less Trials isn't enough for you? Whatever man.

Actually, Turtledove hits the mark, while you miss a key point.

You think I don't understand his point? You think I've missed it? No. I just don't sympathize.

Here's the easiest, quickest synopsis: traps take you out of your comfort zone. It doesn't feel like the same game to you (hence all the allusions to random platformers in Lab QQ threads). It is different.

Your argument is: remove the difference, keep PoE "pure," and do not encourage players to try different things.

My argument is: gate those AC points behind that different experience, but ease players into it better (little bit Normal, little more Cruel, no big bites until Merciless) and don't make them tutorial it 3 times.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

EnjoyTheJourney wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You cannot reasonably claim that traps pose zero difficulty. Claiming they are not very difficult is one thing, saying that their utter removal would not be a loss of difficulty is another. Lessening (or outright removing) traps does reduce difficulty, which I think is fine for Normal and Cruel.

50% less Labyrinth/Izaro (assuming one run per difficulty) and 66% less Trials isn't enough for you? Whatever man.

Actually, Turtledove hits the mark, while you miss a key point.

You think I don't understand his point? You think I've missed it? No. I just don't sympathize.

Here's the easiest, quickest synopsis: traps take you out of your comfort zone. It doesn't feel like the same game to you (hence all the allusions to random platformers in Lab QQ threads). It is different.

Your argument is: remove the difference, keep PoE "pure," and do not encourage players to try different things.

My argument is: gate those AC points behind that different experience, but ease players into it better (little bit Normal, little more Cruel, no big bites until Merciless) and don't make them tutorial it 3 times.

True that it doesn't feel like the same game. It feels more like Prince of Persia, Mario, or Frogger. Those are games that I hate. I hate playing those kind of games because their game play is boring tedious and not fun to me. It is not a comfort zone issue for me. It is an issue of boring tedious and not fun game play. Whether or not a change should be made is not our decision. That decision belongs to GGG. They will take input from people saying that they dislike labyrinth to the point that they quit, that they create fewer characters, etc., as well as people like you saying what you're saying, and their own internal data reports and decide what they want to do.

That means it is a comfort zone issue for you.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

That means it is a comfort zone issue for you.

Okay, by that definition then, if I hate eating Okra because it tastes horrible to me then you might say that "Okra is outside my comfort zone".