SET FREE THE ASCENDANCY POINTS (or rework the lab) [New ascension methods/lab rework ideas]

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Looks like I triggered him.

Well, Regulator, I can tell this thread is very important to you. More than things like thoroughly examining the issues and fairness in discussion. So if believing that I need to refute every little point you make in order for my arguments to have any validity is what makes you happy, then by all means
1. go right ahead, and
2. stop confusing me with goetzjam

I never promise I'm done with a thread anymore, but I do plan on it with this one. I'm man enough to admit I'm just a little triggered myself.

That is my point. This is making people madder than issues that probably are more substantial. After all the lab can be pay to win (with in game currency, a fact I dislike but that's a derail). They made non sharable loot because it was anther issue hurting the game.

ScrottieMcB the fact the argument is making you mad shows its a contentious issue. More than say "loot Levels" which are getting nerfed next patch and probably will hurt casual more than this (since they can pay thru this rather cheaply).

This is a Maps vs Frogger issue for the most part.

Be honest who here hasent done the labs on at least one character or payed a couple chaos to legally cheat?

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

Since I got you on the line, and nobody else want to address this:

You do know the lab isn't Frogger, right? I don't even mean literally Frogger, but just the general concept of Frogger. And, you do see how continuing to call it Frogger is counterproductive, right?

It's totally begging the question when it's framed as, "Well, the lab is Frogger, so put forth an argument why Frogger should remain in the game."

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Regulator wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"Percent max life" damage scaling on traps: Partially. There's no reason I can see to have every trap deal % max life damage, nor have every source of % max life damage be a trap. Having this feature on one or two traps would probably be good design (to make stacking EHP only work against some traps), but not all of them. Also, three of the trap designs are VERY similar spinning blades deals.

Why should it be good to have some or none or all? Were do you base your assumption? Just your personal satisfaction and enjoyment?

And here is the issue, if the initial analysis/thoughts are biased how can really the answers/suggestion be truly helpful? They are not even the right ones to begin with because of the origin. In no case im trying to make you agree with reallocating the ascendancy points/creating new ascencion methods. Nor to make you despise the labyrinth or the playstyle it provides. Only to make people see how bad effect the labyrinth has truly to the game. Design-wise its a disgrace, a monstrocity that took the game to a totally different path. And no, different does not mean better in this case.

Not responding to any of the other drivel.

First, it's not personal preference, it's solid design. If all enemies are the same, then there isn't diversity of play, which means there isn't more than a small handful of preferences appealed to. That's why I said having some unkillable and/or leech-immune enemies is a good thing, and having some percent-instead-of-flat damage effects is a good thing.

The biggest problem with their implementation of these two entirely separate concepts (unkillable, and percentage-damage) is that they're overly concentrated in one place. Not just the Lab, but even on the same enemies (every immortal enemy in the game currently deals percent-damage). Good design would have been to spread traps, in lower concentrations, all over Wraeclast (or at least as a map affix, if Trials as tutorials are really that damn important); to have less traps in the labirynth; to include multiple trap types which do flat damage the normal way; to design at least one normal, killable enemy which deals percent-damage. This would create a far wider variety of play experiences and not make the Lab feel so different from normal play (the attempt limit is already all the uniqueness the Lab requires, all by itself).

I'm not sure different is better, but variety is better. The problem is actually a failure to maximize the possible combinations, thus failing to capitalize on potential variety. The rest of the game is XXX, the labirynth is YYY; this ignores XXY, XYX, and XYY (although I think the attempt limit mechanic should be a Lab exclusive, so I'd ignore YXX, YXY, YYX).

Lastly, you're not really trying to fix anything. This thread has always been about running from a problem rather than solving it. "I hate the Lab, so let's make it so the Lab is optional." Cowardice and passive-aggression. The proper approach is "I hate the Lab, so let's make it so I like the Lab."

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You think loot tension was a less contentious issue than this? If so, you really don't know your forum history.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You think loot tension was a less contentious issue than this? If so, you really don't know your forum history.

Man, if loot tension was worse then that's pretty bad. Loot tension must involve tacking one's scrotum to a wooden chair or something?

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

I don't think you read my post.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

Since I got you on the line, and nobody else want to address this:

You do know the lab isn't Frogger, right? I don't even mean literally Frogger, but just the general concept of Frogger. And, you do see how continuing to call it Frogger is counterproductive, right?

It's totally begging the question when it's framed as, "Well, the lab is Frogger, so put forth an argument why Frogger should remain in the game."

It is, of course, understood that Frogger is a different game and a different genre from ARPG. When people say that, what they mean is that the Labyrinth trap game play feels like Frogger game play to some people.